No, the technology which lead to the internet was developed in the 60s. Telenet was commercially viable in 1974 was was quite widely used from its inception.
And we aren't going to get into a debate about nuclear because like you said, it would be quite an argument. All I will say is this, renewable energy sources receive 5 times more dollars per kilowatt hours generated in subsidies then nuclear does.
Which Energy Source Receives the Largest Subsidy? | Clearing the Air | NCPA.org
It does when you take into consideration that all this R&D isn't going to be free. The money has to come from someplace. What happens when alternative energy is never profitable and the government runs out of money to pay for it? Profitability will mean everything, at that point.
Neither has alternative energy.
How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?
How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?
Maybe a couple pennies more. Now put the shoe on the other foot, how expensive do you think wind and solar power would be if the government stopped subsidizing it?
How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?
Why would/should the government stop subsidizing it? It still subsidizes coal and natural gas even though they are supposedly cheaper. The "cheap" cost of fossil fuels is only comparatively inexpensive because the government makes it so. It would be no different for alternative energy.
Why would/should the government stop subsidizing it? It still subsidizes coal and natural gas even though they are supposedly cheaper. The "cheap" cost of fossil fuels is only comparatively inexpensive because the government makes it so. It would be no different for alternative energy.
Shouldn't matter, since--according to all the libbis--supply and demand doesn't appky to gas prices.
My bad, I should have explained myself a bit. thanks to Malthus for doing so.Thanks... that's what I has guessed.
LEMONT, Ill. — President Barack Obama is pushing Congress to authorize $200 million a year for research into clean energy technologies that can wean automobiles off oil.
Obama proposed the idea of an energy security trust last month in his State of the Union address, but he was putting a price tag on the idea during a trip Friday to the Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago — $2 billion over 10 years. The White House said the research would be paid for with revenue from federal oil and gas leases on offshore drilling and would not add to the deficit.
The money would fund research on "breakthrough" technologies such as batteries for electric cars and biofuels made from switch grass or other materials. Researchers also would look to improve use of natural gas as a fuel for cars and trucks.
White House officials said the president's proposal would not require expansion of drilling to federal lands or water where it is now prohibited. Instead, they are counting on increased production from existing sites, along with efficiencies from an administration plan to streamline drilling permits. The government collects more than $6 billion a year in royalties from production on federal lands and waters.
Obama's push for the energy trust came as the Environmental Protection Agency released a new report Friday indicating that fuel economy standards rose last year by 1.4 miles per gallon — the largest annual increase since EPA started keeping track. The agency said the improvement was due to better availability of high-performing cars and more options for consumers.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers suggested that rather than encouraging research on fuel-efficient cars, the government should focus on making diverse fuels more available and improving transportation infrastructure.
Argonne is one of the Energy Department's largest national laboratories for scientific and engineering research, staffed by more than 1,250 scientists and engineers. White House officials said it was chosen as the site of the president's speech because of its tradition of research into vehicle technologies.....snip~
Obama wants research to wean vehicles off oil - Americas - Stripes
By MATTHEW DALY and NEDRA PICKLER The Associated Press <<<<<More here!
We did hear Obama say about taking care of infrastructure. So why isn't he listening to the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers on that point. I don't have a problem with Government State, local, and Fed, moving their Vehicles to natural gas. Anybody else? Thoughts?
there are just so many errors in this post, sorry I have to point that out.One barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil only produces 19 gallons of gasoline. The cost of oil per barrel is currently $109. The average cost of gasoline per gallon, minus average state, local, and federal taxes, is $3.36. So, an oil company gets $63.84 for a barrel of oil that cost them $109 and that isn't even subtracting the costs of transporting the oil, refining it, distributing it, and all of the labor involved. Producing gasoline isn't even remotely profitable for an oil company unless the government is paying for it, but, fortunately there are other things they produce with it (plastics, petrochemicals, etc). Supply and demand doesn't matter in this case because no businessman in their right mind would spend well over $109 for a product people will only pay $63.84 for, no matter how abundant it is or how many people want it. If people want to complain about the cost of alternative fuels then they should bear in mind the fact that the only thing standing between gasoline production and the economic abyss is a package of $15.6 billion in government subsidies. The oil companies wouldn't even bother with it because it isn't profitable.
EROEI. Research can improve that marginally.
We can't run the global economy and feed 8+ billion people on alternative forms energy charged into batteries, any better than one could be a body-builder eating nothing but celery. Yes, there are calories in celery. No, an elite athlete cannot sustain on it. It's folly.
That's simply your opinion, and it doesn't stand up to reality.
We are supplying more of our energy everyday from the sun, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.
O
None of those took 50 years of funding with nothing to show for it.
Why not pay down the deficit with that $2 billion?
Nuclear energy and the internet? No. Petro-fuels? Yes.
there are just so many errors in this post, sorry I have to point that out.
First of all, where do you get $109 a barrel from??? BRENT crude is $109 today, and very few American refiners would buy any crude referenced to Brent at market when they could pay the NYMEX price for WTI from a trader of $93. Reality is, most refineries buy from mid stream buyers or at the wellhead, where crude is discounted anywhere from a few dollars to $30 (this month's posted for WY heavy sour is $62 at the wellhead) or even more (for Alberta dilbit for instance). You got your input costs way wrong.
Secondly: there is no fixed relationship between how much gasoline comes from a barrel. Different crudes have different yields from simple refineries, and more modern refineries with a high Nelsen index (of complexity) can make what market demands from almost any feedstock. In fact, with all of the crackate, reformate and alkylates in reflux, you can end up with MORE than 42 gals of product from a barrel of crude. Gasoline is also hardly the only product from a refinery.
$15 Bn would be not even a drop in the bucket when you consider that the US uses 19million barrels PER DAY of petroleum products, or 6.9 BILLION barrels per year worth nearly $1 TRILLION per year. IF thee was such a "subsidy", it would amount to 1.5%. However, this number that is tossed around with no reference is for ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION on capital projects and equipment. It doesn't SAVE the oil companies a penny as the depreciation period is just made shorter. There is no direct "subsidy". Even to gain the advantage of the accelerated depreciation, they have to SPEND the money in capital equipment and projects to gain that.
So, all that in mind: oil companies do indeed make money selling gasoline - even without any government subsidies. But, it no easy way to earn a buck. You might have noticed that there hasn't been a new refinery built since 1976, the ones that exist have been very extensively upgraded to meet modern emissions requirements for the plants themselves and the fuels that they make, and the ones on the East coast that once used Brent indexed crudes (when the price was similar to US oil) are now closing left and right.
Reality is that we currently have relatively abundant fossil fuels. What I'm talking about is a future reality in which fossil fuels are not abundant.
What you seem to be talking about is a fantasy.
And no energy exists which feeds 8+ billion people on electrical currents from alternative energy sources.
Our agricultural methods collapse without fossil fuels.
Global freight screeches to a halt. Many billions of people cannot be sustained in a world without abundant fossil fuels. Investing in a fantasy doesn't make the fantasy a reality.
We've known that since Nixon was president. What is your point?
If it were fantasy our usage of solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power would not be increasing each year.
You severely underestimate, the power of the sun, wind, water, and the atom. We continue to transition to non fossil fuel sources of energy.
Good reason not to waste them on transportation.
My point is you aren't grasping mine.
That it is increasing each year fails miserably to show that 8+ billion people can be sustained on it.
I've repeated it over and over again and you (and others) fail to even begin to comprehend. There is no source of energy with an EROEI that can possibly replace what fossil fuels do for us. The EROEI is too low, and the storage issue is insurmountable insofar as operating large machinery is concerned. EROEI, agriculture, global freight, and energy storage... these alternatives are cool but they do not show anywhere near the amount of promise we would need them to if we expected to keep growing in an age of oil decline. Too late. We would have had to grasp that and do something about it decades ago. We have never cared about the future as much as we have cared about ourselves. That was true 50 years ago and it's true today.
If we transition transportation to electric, already feasible, there is enough oil for other uses, at least until we find alternatives for those uses.
Do you deny that man was able to live before he started burning fossil fuels?
Do your research and show us where it's feasible to transition the world's transportation to electric. You won't be able to show this.
Obviously not. Do you know what the world's population was before we started burning fossil fuels to get our needs met? My hypothesis is that our population will have to regress to somewhere closer to that level when we regress to life without fossil fuels. There exists nothing that disproves this hypothesis.