What should the U.S.’s role be?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Less government regulation and free market, the same way gasoline and the vehicles that use it were originally developed. Just to suggest something that hasn't been tried in a while!

My concern is not that free markets don't work - they mostly do. However, developing alternative energy sources is hugely expensive and I believe good public policy. Not sure the free market on its own will handle that.

[I B Hankering]

U.S. moves warships closer to Libya, freezes assets

By Missy Ryan and Ross Colvin
WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:09pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States began moving warships and aircraft closer to Libya on Monday and froze $30 billion in Libyan assets, ramping up pressure on leader Muammar Gaddafi after calling on him to step down.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...71K6D520110228

[Guest083011]

IMO Yucca is a potential mess. Maybe not in our lifetimes or generations, but I don't think it is the panacea that we want.

Couldn't we just pack it in a big-ass rocket and aim for the sun (yeah I know launching has its own inherent problems). We'll send it at night so we don't see it.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Expedite licensing of new nukes and build the damn storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Nuclear power is the only technology currently available that scales and doesn't require extensive subsidies. What it needs is the bullshit delays stopped.

[pjorourke]

I actually know someone who was one of the lead scientists studying Yucca. He says its as safe as humanly possible, but more important, its about 100x as safe as what we are doing now.

In generations, they will have new science we can't even conceive of.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by SR Only

IMO Yucca is a potential mess. Maybe not in our lifetimes or generations, but I don't think it is the panacea that we want.

Couldn't we just pack it in a big-ass rocket and aim for the sun (yeah I know launching has its own inherent problems). We'll send it at night so we don't see it.

And, launch it from Afghanistan!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

And, launch it from Afghanistan!

Do you know how much fuel it takes to get to Afghanistan. (j/p LOL)

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

My question is if neither taxes on gasoline nor government assistance is seen as an option to help in developing alternative energy sources what options are left?

Actually, I do believe that "energy production" is one of the few areas where regulation has some merit. But, such regulation does mean a higher cost of service. It depends on what your motivations are.

If your focus is low cost energy, then less regulation and allow market forces to prevail. But, you sacrifice consistancy.

If your focus is consistancy, then you get more regulation, and higher cost.

Power generation (in a consistant focused world) means that there is generating capacity sitting there fallow for much of the time...because generating capacity must be designed and mantained to handle peak periods...which only occur occasionally. That means that capital is deployed to build generating capacity (which must be provided a return) and such return must be provided from a generating source that is not maximized most of the time. Hence a much higher per KWH cost.

The perfect example is north Texas's problems related to this past months cold weather here. There were rolling blackouts all over the city. As it turns out, there was a plan for generating capacity to handle such peaks, but they were poorly maintained and they did not provid the needed energy source. They were poorly maintained becuase they were run on a profit motivation, which tends to dictate cost cutting. So, while we have lower cost energy...it is not as consistant as it was during the heavier regulated years.

PJ is correct though. We could generate signifcant power using nuclear power generation. But the cost, and lead time to build such plants is cost prohibitive...primarly due to regulatory and environmental concerns. Of course no one even talks about the jobs that are lost due to non-constuction.

The same thing goes for refining. Like PJ said, there has not been a refinary built in the US in 20-30 years. As such, current domestic refining can not even handle the volume of crude that we prouce domestically. While such situation does tend to hold crude prices down domestically (WTI product prices are $5-7 less than NYMEX) becuase there is more crude an no place to go with it...that just means that refined products are refined elsewhere and imported. The jobs associated with such refining operations (and refinary construction) are also transferred to those other locals.

Our motivation is not jobs. It is envoirinmental instead. That may make us feel better, but there are a lot of people out of work as a result. Pick your poisen.

I know a group in a little piss ant town a few hundred miles north of here, that has a nuclear package unit that could be sold to small/medium size towns all across this country. Each package unit could handle all the power needs of those towns. But environmental concerns (not to mention security concerns...i.e. how do we keep some terrorist from stealing the nuclear materials for bad reasons) keep that from happening.

There are lots of things that need to be worked out. But we spend all of our time arguing over BS, and making sure we appear to be politcally correct...and nothing else happens.

[DEPmic05]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Really? The 10,000 Frenchmen who served in the American Revolution under Generals Lafayette and Rochembeau, not to mention the French fleet under Admiral de Grasse that was essential to the victory at the battle of Yorktowne, might beg to differ. Never mind the huge sums of money lent to us by the French crown, and private bankers in France and Holland.

My mistake in my comments about the American Revolution. I know we had military and financial help from the French but my comment was that we didn't need for them to conduct a surgical strike by assassinating the legitimate ruler of the British Empire, an act that I'm sure would have caused a lot of problems for the French. In the end, the 13 Colonies won through more legitimate means.

But, talking about the contributions the French made...

Yes, we did have allies that fought with us and their assistance (not to mention the larger global war they were fighting across the world with the British) did much to convince the British that they should abandon the fight in the colonies and concentrate their efforts elsewhere, such as India and the West Indies.

But, when the French military forces did get involved in the 13 colonies, it was one major battle...Yorktown. They did not enter the 13 colonies and stay for the next five, ten or fifteen years. They didn't leave peace keepers in the country to rebuild. Hell, they couldn't. Not with all their other possessions in the world threatened by British forces.

Yorktown was one battle. The American colonies had won many major victories largely on their own...Cowpens, Trenton, Princeton, Saratoga. Without all those other victories, the Battle of Yorktown would not have been possible. The French force would have faced a more formidable opponent rather than a British army that had been driven out of the countryside to take refuge and be trapped in Yorktown. The reason why the French Fleet and French troops were able to help trap the British was that Cornwallis had already suffered enough reversals to make him vulnerable. The French basically closed the trap on him.

My point was not that we didn't have help. Nor that there weren't others getting involved in our affairs...both for and against us. Even the British had help from foreign investors and they also used Hessian mercenaries since their own army was not large enough. My point was that in the end, we were not dependent on a foreign army to restore peace in the country. We were on more even terms with the French, even if we were not a nation like them. And after that battle, how long did the French stick around?

The problem with getting involved in Libya is that if we did go into the country, it would not be in support of a group that could stand on even ground with us. We would not be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with them and then leave after one great battle. No, we would be expected to stay and help rebuild...something we cannot do. We gain nothing out of it and it drains us. Even a surgical strike against Qaddafi would create a backlash against us. Whatever help we give them, it has to be the Libyan people that win the battle against Qaddafi, not the US coming in to "rescue" them. If we shoulder too much of the burden, then its a US show now.

I do not expect things to remain a purely Libyan affair. There will always be others willing to get involved and I expect that other nations will try to interfere to some extent in Libya. I just don't want the US to be one of them.

Oh, and you brought up a good point. The American colonies did receive a lot of financing from the French. Most of the debt the American Colonies had was financed by loans from France and the Netherlands. Not a bad thing, since we made the most of it, gained our independence and then continued to grow. See what happens when you give money to a people willing to use it to build a better country? But, you have to be careful not to overextend yourself with generosity. Both the British and French went into debt during the war. The British were able to pay theirs off. The French had a much harder time and the debt crises they suffered was one of the contributing causes of the French Revolution.

[discreetgent]

Thanks RK. Now lets expand my question beyond nuclear energy which is a proven technology to new energy sources like wind, solar, and stuff that is pie in the sky research. Do we say government should be involved in some form - seed money like DARPA gave out, tax incentives, etc?

I guess the broader question is: when there is an intersection of public policy (less dependence on oil) with the need for new technology does it make sense for government to be involved?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

U.S. moves warships closer to Libya, freezes assets

By Missy Ryan and Ross Colvin
WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:09pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States began moving warships and aircraft closer to Libya on Monday and froze $30 billion in Libyan assets, ramping up pressure on leader Muammar Gaddafi after calling on him to step down.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...71K6D520110228

So Barack is now a neo-con? Surprised WTF hasn't come in here and blown a fuse. Oh, that's right. That only happens for Republican Presidents.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Thanks RK. Now lets expand my question beyond nuclear energy which is a proven technology to new energy sources like wind, solar, and stuff that is pie in the sky research. Do we say government should be involved in some form - seed money like DARPA gave out, tax incentives, etc?

Wind and solar do not scale. They will never be more than fringe technologies. They also suffer from distribution and NIMBY problems -- they generally need to be generated away from population centers. Solar has little potential as baseline power -- maybe peaking power.

Micro nukes on the other hand could be built into communities.

Re incentives: I don't trust crony capitalism in any form.

[discreetgent]

gnadfly: Do you really see no difference between positioning troops near Libya and invading Iraq?

[discreetgent]

PJ: wind and solar were just examples, pick any technology you want.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by DEPmic05

We were on more even terms with the French, even if we were not a nation like them. And after that battle, how long did the French stick around?

I would think that a large part of that had to do with Franklin not bothering to tell the French that he was involved in secret negotiations with the British about relinquishing rule over the colonies. That would be enough to break Frances alliance and choice to "stick around."

I hear what you are saying about how things were done but what's the point in comparing a war in the 1700's with one today? The only thing that remains the same (whether enemy or ally) is a strong belief that alliances are always better than solo efforts. How much value those alliances hold in the long term is another topic altogether.

C

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

gnadfly: Do you really see no difference between positioning troops near Libya and invading Iraq?

It’s somewhat cheaper, in terms of dollars and cents, than say the deployments for the First Gulf War or the Second Gulf War, by-in-large, because we were already nearby. Otherwise, in terms of dollars and cents, it would/will still be quite expensive.