OldTrader,
You make some great points and my intention was to broad brush my ideas as briefly as possible. As a general rule, I believe the government should stay out of the way. That includes both roadblocks to current energy sources (i.e. our ridiculous aversion to nuclear power) as well as pushing a pet alternative (i.e. my ethanol comments above). The problem is that the people in government who make these regulations and promote various alternatives are not motivated by the best economic outcome, but rather by lobbies and getting re-elected. That results in bad policy. Nuclear is a great example. It is one of, if not the, most efficient source of energy and congress simply ignores or flat out opposes its use. Why? Because it doesn't work? Nope. Its because the environmental lobby has them huddled in the corner in fear for their elected lives.
I also do not oppose tax credits in most cases, versus direct subsidies and/or tariffs. That is solely due to my opposition to taxes in general and the appropriate role of government. I realize that a tax credit is no different economically than a cash payout, but at least its applied to money already paid to the government, which is something I favor reducing as much as possible, but that is for another discussion.
As for things like transmission lines, of course the government has to be involved, just like they do with electrical lines now. That is what government exists for. But they shouldn't be determining which alternative source is going to be used. Let the market decide what people want.
People keep mentioning that it costs a lot to develop new energy...of course it does, which is why we still use oil at $140 a barrel. But as oil has gone up, more investment is driven to these other ideas. When one pans out, it will be developed by private means. It is the only efficient way to do it. If Pickens thinks wind is the answer, then he will find the money to do it because it will make a profit. Profit attracts capital. Government subsidies on the other hand simply attract bad idea after bad idea because there is the lure of the public trough. It is only when capital can chase "good" ideas (and that happens by letting the bad ideas flop as quickly as possible) that they come to market and help people in the fastest time possible. We can't stop using oil just for the sake of not using oil, as the environmental religious zealots would have us do...we have to have a cheaper alternative to achieve widespread adoption of it.
So to try and sum up my scattered thoughts, I am not opposed to Pickens ideas, nor am I against his "profiteering" from them. I just oppose his assertion that "we can't drill our way out" or that wind is the best option. Let the risk takers do their thing...there are plenty of them because the reward at the end is so immense. There is a "Bill Gates" out there somewhere that is working on the alternative energy that will be more efficient than oil...and someday he will be richer than Gates, which is what insures a constant flow of cash into promising ideas. Time and capital, not government, will tell.
You make some great points and my intention was to broad brush my ideas as briefly as possible. As a general rule, I believe the government should stay out of the way. That includes both roadblocks to current energy sources (i.e. our ridiculous aversion to nuclear power) as well as pushing a pet alternative (i.e. my ethanol comments above). The problem is that the people in government who make these regulations and promote various alternatives are not motivated by the best economic outcome, but rather by lobbies and getting re-elected. That results in bad policy. Nuclear is a great example. It is one of, if not the, most efficient source of energy and congress simply ignores or flat out opposes its use. Why? Because it doesn't work? Nope. Its because the environmental lobby has them huddled in the corner in fear for their elected lives.
I also do not oppose tax credits in most cases, versus direct subsidies and/or tariffs. That is solely due to my opposition to taxes in general and the appropriate role of government. I realize that a tax credit is no different economically than a cash payout, but at least its applied to money already paid to the government, which is something I favor reducing as much as possible, but that is for another discussion.
As for things like transmission lines, of course the government has to be involved, just like they do with electrical lines now. That is what government exists for. But they shouldn't be determining which alternative source is going to be used. Let the market decide what people want.
People keep mentioning that it costs a lot to develop new energy...of course it does, which is why we still use oil at $140 a barrel. But as oil has gone up, more investment is driven to these other ideas. When one pans out, it will be developed by private means. It is the only efficient way to do it. If Pickens thinks wind is the answer, then he will find the money to do it because it will make a profit. Profit attracts capital. Government subsidies on the other hand simply attract bad idea after bad idea because there is the lure of the public trough. It is only when capital can chase "good" ideas (and that happens by letting the bad ideas flop as quickly as possible) that they come to market and help people in the fastest time possible. We can't stop using oil just for the sake of not using oil, as the environmental religious zealots would have us do...we have to have a cheaper alternative to achieve widespread adoption of it.
So to try and sum up my scattered thoughts, I am not opposed to Pickens ideas, nor am I against his "profiteering" from them. I just oppose his assertion that "we can't drill our way out" or that wind is the best option. Let the risk takers do their thing...there are plenty of them because the reward at the end is so immense. There is a "Bill Gates" out there somewhere that is working on the alternative energy that will be more efficient than oil...and someday he will be richer than Gates, which is what insures a constant flow of cash into promising ideas. Time and capital, not government, will tell.
