Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

I think the gist of it is whether the Government should become involved in the risky business of investing our tax dollars in developing emerging technologies.

Historically SUCESSFUL energy sources have been developed thru private enterprise and that worked because the entrepreneurs had a vested interest in them becoming successful….if something didn’t work financially or technically it was time to move on and try something else. This is potentially a very time consuming and costly project with no guarantee of success but it is one with a huge potential payoff.

It seems whenever the government becomes involved in developing something there is not necessary the drive to make the product a commercial success. The ethanol program and subsidies seem to be a good example of a product that very few actually want, takes more energy to produce than the final product makes, and is only on the market because of Government backing with our tax dollars. Pretty much the same thing as the “green fleet” using $26 a gallon fuel vice the $3 a gallon petroleum fuel. How many people do these investments actually employ or will employ over the long term?

According to the news (in small print of course) we are again a net exporter or petroleum products and predicted to also be a net exporter of natural gas by 2016. Does make you wonder why we are paying so much doesn’t it? The thoughts of many people are that by raising the price of fuel it artificially makes the other alternatives more viable, rather than the technologies being able to compete on their own merits.

But that aside, things like solar panels and wind mills were already commercially available before this administration come to office. To me a better strategy would have been to provide incentives in the companies/technologies that had proven successful both from a commercial and technological standpoint allowing them to expand bring the cost down and put more people to work. As a company grows and is successful, it will naturally bring more competition to the market place and drive the technology/manufacturing (jobs) to improve so it can remain competitive.

But hey what do I know.

Originally Posted by Mike P

...To me a better strategy would have been to invest in the companies/technologies that had proven successful both from a commercial and technological standpoint allowing them to expand bring the cost down and put more people to work...

That's hard to do when those companies/technologies are in China.

If I were king... I would do the following.

1) tap every single drop of oil in North America that we can get to. Maybe there's enough to become oil independent, maybe not, but I'd try. We're not trying now.

2) don't allow the export of oil from US.

3) Don't "invest" in private companies. Governments should not invest in private companies. It should not be the goal that someone make money off of a government venture.

4) create a government sponsored project(s), akin to the Manhattan Project or putting a man on the moon, to a) design a better and cheaper electric car and/or b) design a better and cheaper hydrogen car and build a nation wide infrastructure for hydrogen delivery.

Unfortunately, neither of the candidates will do any of the above nor do either of them have the leadership to do #4

Originally Posted by Mike P

I think the gist of it is whether the Government should become involved in the risky business of investing our tax dollars in developing emerging technologies.

You're right, Mike. In recent months we have stood in awe of the success our government has had investing our money for us.

[QUOTE=herbet99;478104] ( 4) create a government sponsored project(s), akin to the Manhattan Project or putting a man on the moon, to a) design a better and cheaper electric car and/or b) design a better and cheaper hydrogen car and build a nation wide infrastructure for hydrogen delivery. /QUOTE]

That sounds okay, too, but .........

What if the government could be taken out of the picture?

In 1908 the London Daily Mail put up a prize of 500 Pounds Sterling for the first person to fly across the English Channel in an (other-than-lighter-than-air) aircraft. A man named Louis Bleriot collected that one.

Then a hundred years later (2009) Burt Rutan won the "Ansari X" prize of $10,000,000 bucks for being the first non-government organization to accomplish sending a reusable manned spacecraft into space. He had to do it twice in two weeks to collect the prize.

What I'm leading up to is this: Put up a huge prize, a billion maybe? ..... to do what Herbet99 said in his hydrogen car quote (above) ...... with the money to be payable when the system is proven to work?

Putting up the billion would be a better use for government cash than Solyndra or a lot of other Obama schemes.

Okay. feel free to tell me the idea is dumb. It won't be the first time.

Jim

Originally Posted by Big Tracks

...
Okay. feel free to tell me the idea is dumb. It won't be the first time...

Interesting idea. The hard part with hydrogen though, is the distribution.