In principle I don';t have a problem with the state offering long-term support to the alternative energy sector in order to kickstart the process

danivon wrote:Wow! No wonder the things are less economical if the government is putting a 250% tariff on imports!

The enormous subsides for gas and oil producers the same.

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:

In principle I don';t have a problem with the state offering long-term support to the alternative energy sector in order to kickstart the process. What worries me though is the likelihood that all the technologies we're currently looking into are extremely inefficient and highly unlikely to be the optimal solution for the longer term, but once we're locked into long term subsidy arrangements for these technologies then it's difficult to change.

I agree with this last part. Corn ethanol is a very good example of that.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is pressing oil companies to back fuel-blends that contain less gasoline and more ethanol. He says it will "increase America's energy security and spur additional job creation," particularly in rural areas -- a priority for the Obama administration.
Oil industry support is necessary if high-ethanol blends are to become commercially viable.

The oil industry says it is committed to using more ethanol in its fuel mix, but it opposes government mandates.

“EPA continues to move forward with its decision to approve the use of 15 percent ethanol (E15) in gasoline, even though testing to date shows this higher concentration would not be fully compatible with much of the dispensing and storage infrastructure at our nation’s gas stations," the American Petroleum Institute said on Thursday.

Fuel blends that contain 15 percent ethanol -- up from the current 10 percent -- present a major infrastructure challenge. Gasoline pumps will have to be changed, and so will car engines.

On Thursday, the American Petroleum Institute noted that around half of all gasoline station equipment is not compatible with E15.

"Adding these fuels into our gasoline supplies could result in damaged equipment, safety problems, and environmental impacts at our gas stations – to say nothing about car engines – and it could even erode support for the nation’s renewable fuels program," Bob Greco said.

I suspect that there are more high paying jobs in installation of the solar panels than manufacturing them (just thinking about it -- perhaps others have data). Now we are making the panels more expensive, increasing the cost of solar and our subsidies even more (and our need for subsidies) to protect solar manufacturers (who I'm guessing are politically connected) at the expense of the guys and gals who are putting these things up, who are going to spend much more of their energy lobbying Washington as opposed to their operations.

In principle I don';t have a problem with the state offering long-term support to the alternative energy sector in order to kickstart the process

Sassenach wrote:. . . if we make sure we've backed the right horse to subsidise then i don't see any problem with subsidies when a technology is still in its infancy.

Still, go ahead and vote to reelect the President! After all, what can he do if we have divided government?

Sassenach wrote:Well yes, ethanol is clearly a stupid thing to be supporting. But even most diehard environmentalists would agree with that. It's a boondoggle. Well corn ethanol anyway, by all accounts it's much more efficient if you make it from sugar cane, but you don't grow a lot of that in swing states...

As for electric cars, I think in this instance it's a better candidate for investing in basic research rather than ongoing subsidy. The thing that would instantly make electric cars viable would be a big leap in battery technology to drastically increase the range. Until we get that then electric cars will always be an insignificant niche market. I wouldn't object to state support for research in this area, or for that matter into researching hydrogen fuel cells or other alternative power sources for motor vehicles, but we do obviously need to be selective in how we spend the money.

Are you sure? I'm under the impression that gas and oil are taxed more than any other energy source, and receive dramatically fewer subsidies per KWH (or whatever measurement you like) than all the other sources

The enormous subsides for gas and oil producers the same.

Ray Jay wrote:. . . refudiating . . . truthiness . . .

EVANSTON, Ill. --- The limitations of conventional and current solar cells include high production cost, low operating efficiency and durability, and many cells rely on toxic and scarce materials. Northwestern University researchers have developed a new solar cell that, in principle, will minimize all of these solar energy technology limitations.

In particular, the device is the first to solve the problem of the Grätzel cell, a promising low-cost and environmentally friendly solar cell with a significant disadvantage: it leaks. The dye-sensitized cell’s electrolyte is made of an organic liquid, which can leak and corrode the solar cell itself.

Grätzel cells use a molecular dye to absorb sunlight and convert it to electricity, much like chlorophyll in plants. But the cells typically don’t last more than 18 months, making them commercially unviable. Researchers have been searching for an alternative for two decades.

At Northwestern, where interdisciplinary collaboration is a cornerstone, nanotechnology expert Robert P. H. Chang challenged chemist Mercouri Kanatzidis with the problem of the Grätzel cell. Kanatzidis’ solution was a new material for the electrolyte that actually starts as a liquid but ends up a solid mass. Thus, the new all solid-state solar cell is inherently stable.