Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre
Oil subsidies help us compete against a cartel. Oil has a demonstrated efficiency.
I'm not opposed to EV subsidies, they encourage innovation. Same with CAFE standards. I'm driving a 455hp V8 that gets 30mpg and will run circles around anything ever produced when similar HP cars got 10mpg (my first hot rod was a '70 Judge).
But wind/solar, even if optimized to hypothetical limits, will never be as efficient as petroleum, nor will they make a significant dent on energy needs. So the subsidies go to an ideological pipe dream. Currently, they have shown little innovation and a lot of bankruptcy.
And I am firmly opposed not only to food-based ethanol subsidies, but also to their use. It does nothing for the climate, causes food prices to rise in the Third World (revolutions have been fought over less), is less efficient, and has led to clear-cutting of rain forests as farmers go where the profit is. Burning food for fuel is about the dumbest idea of this generation.
I am not opposed to non-food ethanol/bio fuels. E.g. cellulosic - Georgia is exploring using Pine trees, which are renewable here, and harvesting Pine is not like clear-cutting rain or old growth forests.
Maybe I could put a nuclear reactor in my SS. 
Padre |
Would still need the subsidies to fund the manufacturing and development of electric motors and the nuclear shielding needed to get into the market - at least at first
You joke but there are lots of new mini-reactor designs that are theoretically melt-down proof because they can't get hot enough to melt. Would be pretty sweet to never have to refuel. And when you're not driving, you can power your home (partially).
BTW. Cut down and burn all the pine trees you want. Sap dropping cancer they are.