77% favor tax incentives for the development of alt. energy

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:07 am

...even more (77%) favor tax incentives for the development of alternative energy sources...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ergy_plans

Hey! I have an idea for something they could develop!

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:08 am

What most people don't know is that there is more than adequate funding in the alt. energy field.

It is not money that is lacking but viable ideas.

However, long term R&D is a good idea. But that is cheap.

jmc · Post by **jmc** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:05 pm

Depends what you mean by viable. Its true that all else equal alterative energy is not economically competitive, but if you slip on either a carbon tax or more taxes on imported fuel. Nuclear power qnd wind energy suddenly look a great deal more viable in many countries.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:33 am

jmc wrote:Depends what you mean by viable. Its true that all else equal alterative energy is not economically competitive, but if you slip on either a carbon tax or more taxes on imported fuel. Nuclear power qnd wind energy suddenly look a great deal more viable in many countries.

Yeah. We could destroy our economy to make alt. energy work. Is that a good idea?

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:59 am

MSimon wrote:What most people don't know is that there is more than adequate funding in the alt. energy field.

It gets the lowest funding of any energy R&D. I would consider alternate energy (particularly reneablws) completely underutilized.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:45 am

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:What most people don't know is that there is more than adequate funding in the alt. energy field.
It gets the lowest funding of any energy R&D. I would consider alternate energy (particularly reneablws) completely underutilized.

You are not counting venture capital. I'm told the energy field is flooded with venture capital (development) money.

Of course if the USA isn't doing enough research there is a big opportunity for the Europeans. Surely they have lots of people with good ideas that need funding. Why are they starving that area?

And BTW I rarely see new developments coming from the Euros. Any idea why?

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:40 pm

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/index.asp

About 5 years ago I went through the trouble of looking the numbers up, and nuclear accounted for about 58% of all energy expendature over the past 30 years. Rather than actually go through breaking down the stats again, I'll just expect this not to have changed.

Unless you're contesting that in the last 5 years venture capitalists have taken a significant chunk out of development and somehow magically alternative resources are shaking us in our boots.

I'll have to go over the numbers again. Alt energy is still pithy in comparison to everything else.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:44 pm

Josh,

All I have is anecdotal. A VC guy and I were discussing the issue. Huge money going into solar cell ideas. Not all VC. Some established companies as well.

And if the opportunities are so great why aren't the Euros jumping on it?

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:46 pm

Because oil is still cheap and beef from Brazil is still tastey.

But there are interesting big projects that the Euros are jumping on.

I like this one as my personal favorite (being an agriculturalist myself): http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... lding.food

Perhaps the numbers for the raw stats are skewed since they're worldwide, I'll have to narrow it down and see how western countries are developing, it may be true that the western world is investing more into alternate energy but because the developing world isn't it skews the numbers.

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:03 pm

MSimon wrote: “And BTW I rarely see new developments coming from the Euros. Any idea why? “
-----------
This is a topic I thought much about and there are several answers to this.
(Excuse me my bad writing.)

There are cultural factors that not are depending on politics, money or the market.
I have heard some about it from friends ho had made post doc in France and Germany. There have also been some studies showing the “efficiently of sciences”. How many new products there are for the money input? Sweden, my country is among the best in EU on this. Butt the money from government and industries are small and Sweden is indescribable small so the total output is not much. The big EU country France spends lots of money on science and technology but have not much new products for the money. They have not either many articles in prominent journals or Nobel prises. The situation in Germany and England is said to be better but not good.

In large part of Europe there is a strong hierarchy system, both on the universities and in the industries. The Professors rules, and only there ideas are being developed. It is not fine manner to opposite a professor. Finland and Sweden have scientific refuges from France. Students how do not like the system in there countries.

But Swedish students how has been in USA said it’s much better there. American scientists and universities are much more open-minded to new ideas. But there is more in the culture from long time ago. Our greatest inventor Jhon Ericson moved to USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson

In the WW2 many Jewish scientists was killed by the Nazis and some was moving from Europe to USA. This was not good for the Europe but made USA stronger.
Now days its booth more money and a better sciences culture that draw young bright scientists to the US from Europe. But problems for US can arise from the new anti terrorist laws.

There has also been a little application of innovations from university to enterprises.
Many European innovations have been bought by American and Japanese companies.
Bureaucracy from both companies and government and also lack of traditions is here present.
Now there is a large effort to correct the problems. But I think they do some errors here. They want to do industrialists of the inventors. A good scientist or inventor is not necessary a good company leader.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:38 pm

Torulf2,

Thank you. A most excellent overview.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:42 pm

MSimon wrote: Yeah. We could destroy our economy to make alt. energy work. Is that a good idea?

Well, its either that or sit here and FRY!

Something has to give here and the American body politic have got to realize two things:

1) That they are not the only human being inhabiting this planet
2) that they will choke to death along with the rest of us

So get in line; WE, are not going to choke.

I'm sure you, above all people understand this Simon, else why else why would you be doing so much to support the Pollywell and its fans here?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:18 am

rcain wrote:
MSimon wrote: Yeah. We could destroy our economy to make alt. energy work. Is that a good idea?
Well, its either that or sit here and FRY!

Something has to give here and the American body politic have got to realize two things:

1) That they are not the only human being inhabiting this planet
2) that they will choke to death along with the rest of us

So get in line; WE, are not going to choke.

I'm sure you, above all people understand this Simon, else why else why would you be doing so much to support the Pollywell and its fans here?

Well I like science. And I want my children to have the planets and their children to have the stars.

And it is such a neat engineering/science project.

But I'm also a logistics kind of guy and know that it will take 50 to 100 years to fully transition off carbon based fuels of the non-renewable (either by plant growth or chemical factory) sort.

I see no need to panic. BTW I'm a Dalton Minimum type of guy when it comes to CO2. The last 100+ years the sun has been extraordinarily energetic. That is ending. We are going to need to deal with global cooling for the next 50 to 100 years IMO. But if you fear CO2 - tell it to the Chinese. In fact the Us CO2 production is going down and the Euro CO2 production is rising. You might want to have a word with the Euros who promise much and do little.

Besides - like US Grant - I don't scare worth a dam n.

BTW plants love more CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer weather. You got something against plants?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:25 am

Did I mention that destroying the US economy will kill a lot of poor people around the world?

You got something against poor people?