"I don't think it will change Canadians' driving habits, as much as it will influence us to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles next time around."
Great! If you don't have to transport bulky products/objects, or if you recently bought a new vehicle and have $30K+ invested in it, or if you happen to live in a rural location and put on serious mileage on less than perfect roads, or if you actually need to drive in miserable winter driving conditions. That whole "fuel efficient vehicle" position is a major assault on folks who aren't really in any financial position to change their current situation, you know, like buy ANOTHER new car.
Sure, there's a strong argument for hybrids etc., but that's poor justification for kicking that portion of the population who fit my above profiles: farmers, service representatives, large families, etc.
Anyone owning a NON-fuel efficient vehicle has just seen their equity in their vehicle vanish...who the heck is going to buy their '07 F250, if they want to trade up to a fuel efficient vehicle?
“Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”
Well, it'll maximize demand, definitely. It won't make supply drop, since a tax holiday doesn't reduce the profit per unit to the producer - it removes incentive from the State to encourage energy consumption, but it doesn't affect the incentives to produce fuel.
But US oil imports aren't mostly from "the people who hate us most".
We get more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia, and the only other nation that's a serious exporter to the US that can be said to "hate us" at any serious level is Venezuela, which exports to the US less than Nigeria, and under 1/3 as much as Canada and Mexico combined.
(I'd further argue that the Saudi government doesn't hate us, and probably the majority of Saudis don't; it's just that some rich Saudis do.
And likewise, I'm not aware of Venezuelans as a group hating the US, though their government uses the US as a convenient scapegoat.
Lastly, of course, it doesn't matter if the US buys Saudi oil or not - because China will, Europe will, and Japan will. Global commodity markets for energy, after all; every drop produced will be sold.)
Oh, my link is here: [External Link]
Stupid "no html".
"Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering."
You mean like his positions on NAFTA and Iraq?
"We have no energy strategy."
By which he means we don't have government picking winners and losers, hectoring us about turning thermostats down, and spending billions on "alternative energy" boondoggles -- as happened in the 70s. Alternative energy is to energy as alternative medicine is to medicine.
High oil prices inevitably make other energy sources more competitive and also make production of other sources of oil, such as shale oil, economically viable.
Any tax reduction, ipso facto, is a good thing.
Posted at 2008-04-30 15:51:58 [PermaLink]increased tax revenues are always a bad thing economically. Royalties on product that is sold to outside juristictions may benefit the local one but the neighbour who's buying it is suffering.
high oil prices hurt those least able to afford it the most.
You neeed to review the broken window fallacy to see why forcing people to buy fuel efficient cars is not that good overall.
Consider also that the Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. car companies are most at risk if those companies downsize into making fewer, smaller cars. American plants, American jobs, and a dollar cheaper than the loonie will decide which plants get closed.
"Alternative energy is to energy as alternative medicine is to medicine. "
I dunno, my solar powered clothes dryer (aka clothes line) seems to work just fine.
A clothes line is no more an example of "alternative energy" than is a sailboat.
For example, the NRDC defines "alternative energy" as "energy that is not popularly used and is usually environmentally sound, such as solar or wind energy (as opposed to fossil fuels)." The key is "not popularly used" - hence they are "alternative". The "environmentally sound" notion is hogwash, but that's a discussion for another day.
Competitive energy sources can compete on their own merits. (Granted they, too, sometimes receive government subsidies, but that's a political not a technical issue.) Alternative energy requires constant subsidies and special treatment from the government and, almost invariably, turns out to have been a significant waste of taxpayer money, or worse. Most of the fashionable biofuels fall into that category.
Wind and solar energy are "popularly used" in many applications, for which they make sense, and in those applications they are not "alternative". Windmills and solar electric arrays, except under unusual circumstances, are not competitive sources of energy and require favorable treatment and subsidies. Hence they are alternative.
"A clothes line is no more an example of "alternative energy" than is a sailboat." Bruce R.
Dunno. Just moved into a new place that has a clothesline and by using it instead of my Maytag dryer, my electricity bill is considerably lower.
And my skivies smell real fresh!
Why can't enormous arrays of solar panels be constructed in the deserts of the U.S. southwest on lands no one occupies?
And why not stick whole arrays of them on rooftops in L.A. while we're at it?
The more people purchase them, the lower their overall cost becomes.
And as for electric cars? Most people use their vehicles to commute; they never drive more than 35 or 40 miles in a working day--distances that electric cars can cover quite nicely.
Bruce: Lighten up. ;-)
"Windmills and solar electric arrays, except under unusual circumstances, are not competitive sources of energy and require favorable treatment and subsidies. Hence they are alternative."
By that definition nuclear energy is an alternative energy source given the industry's protection under the Nuclear Liability Act (1970) Canada. The act limits the liability of nuclear reactor operators in Canada to the first $75m of any off-site damage done by an accident. Sweet - and I haven't even mentioned the stranded debt charge Ontarians have to pay for Ontario Hydro's nuclear screw-ups.
With respect to solar photovoltaics (solar PV), there are some interesting developments that appear imminent (and not vapour ware so to speak). Current costs for large scale solar PV projects appear to be roughly 7-8 dollars per watt installed ( [External Link]). That figure is based upon several approved RESOP (Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program) projects in Ontario that will receive 42 cents per kW/h. Pretty big subsidy we both agree, but we don't know what Optisolar's costs are since this program was based upon small rooftop type installations (i.e. more expensive to install per kW/h generated).
Nanosolar is one of several companies pursuing advances in thin film materials and appears to be the most advanced with production now underway. Nanosolar claims to be able to profitably produce the "panels" (strips actually) for just under $1 per watt which roughly equates to $2 per watt installed. A quick search of the literature indicates the cost of a new coal plant is approximately $2 per watt (fuel not included).
As they say - interesting times ahead. Here is some background info on Nanosolar and cost of coal fired plants. I'm a realist and understand the intermittent nature of solar - but solar PV does have excellent load matching characteristics.
Nanosolar has secured 650,000 sq, ft. of manufacturing facilities in California and Germany and sold out production until some time in 2009.
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
John, the implicit assumption you are making is that government, rather than the market, is better at picking winning and losing technologies.
As with alternative medicine, the appeal of alternative energy is emotional, not practical. Paraphrasing Marx, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. The first time was the 70s.
Given current knowledge, plastering Los Angeles and the desert with solar electric arrays is superior to other technologies, such as nuclear power, exactly how?
John, nuclear energy is hardly "alternative". It is a proven technology in widespread use, if not in Canada, throughout much of the developed world.
As for the rest, the market will decide. If you're convinced that "nano" (buzz-word for the oughts) technology will make solar energy competitive then invest in it. I'm reminded of the old joke about how solar energy is the energy of the future and always will be.
Bruce:
Nuclear is a proven technology (no dissent from me here) but it does require subsidies. The Nuclear Liability Act in Canada I referred to is a subsidy. Any idea what the industry would pay without it? The answer I believe is no company would insure it or the premiums would be too high - hence the Act limiting liability whereupon any victims would have to go cap in hand to the government for compensation.
Ontario gets a large portion of its electricity from nuclear power (about 50%). The former Ontario Hydro left the taxpayers here with a "stranded debt" of about $20 billion:
"OEFC (Ontario Electricity Financial Corp.) holds the $38 billion debt left by Ontario Hydro when it was broken up in 1998. Some of that debt is offset by assets, but as of last year $20.1 billion was "stranded" debt with no offsetting assets."
[External Link]
Most of that stranded debt is due to Hydro's nuclear division which couldn't bring a project in close to budget if its life depended on it. Every customer now pays a monthly debt reduction charge - otherwise known as a subsidy.
"As for the rest, the market will decide."
Agreed, like I said Nanosolar (nano - hey, I didn't choose the name) believes they will soon be cost competitive with mainstream energy sources. The company is playing with its own money so let's see what happens.
I don't think promoting sloar energy means "the gov't decides".
There's a new material called graphene which looks most promising and may well bring the cost of solar energy way down.
This new material will also revolutionise micro-chips.
[External Link]