“We’ve got a bunch of smart guys. We lock ‘em in a room and kick ‘em in the ass until they come up with some solutions!”
That’s a quote from the Robert Kennedy character in the drama Thirteen Days (starring Kevin Costner) talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don’t know if RFK ever actually said that, but from where I’m standing its the kind of thinking the Democratic party needs to embrace in order to make America work again.
Consider the founding fathers. You had the federalists versus the anti-federalists. They were locked in a room, and had to come up with a compromise that resonates to this day. Smart guys in a room.
Flash forward to the years before WWII. Albert Einstein sends a letter to President Roosevelt urging him to back an American effort to develop an atomic weapon before the Nazis. That led to the Manhattan project and the development of the atomic bomb. Views can differ on the virtue of its use (I am unapologetically in favor of it), but what matters is that it was done before the Nazi war machine did it.
And of course there’s my favorite. President Kennedy tells the smart guys that we’re going to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. He doesn’t ask them if they can, or give them an indeterminate timeframe to work in. He states: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” In July of 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (along with Michael Collins) do it.
These three instances, and numerous others, illustrate what can be achieved — especially in America — when we lock the smart guys in a room and get them cracking on solving the most important issues of our time. We can do it again, and there’s no moment like the present.
The single most paralyzing issue in America is the issue of energy. Obtaining oil dictates so much of our world, including our entire relation to the Middle East and everything associated with that region. Wouldn’t it be so freeing to not have to worry about what we do that causes the Saudis and others to manipulate the price of crude and the repercussions that produces across our economy and into our homes? What if America could just tell the OPEC cartel to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine? We could do it. It’s amazing to me that people can say with such certainty that we can’t find a replacement for oil, and that the only way to rid ourselves of our oil-based entangling alliances is to drill for possible oil in America’s great national lands. The nation that sent Neil Armstrong to skip on the surface of the moon can’t come up with something better than regular unleaded? Ridiculous.
The conservative answer to Smart Guys In A Room usually boils down to letting private industry do it, and its true that many times innovation does optimally come out of private business. But there are some things fit to benefit all of America and the world that you could never leave up to big business because they have no vested interest in it. There’s no incentive for private industry to find an alternative to oil, because all they’re concerned about is the profit to be found in crude. Thankfully we’ve got this thing called the government that works for us and is us and its job isn’t to make a profit but to make things better. Republicans do not believe government should work under any circumstances, and that is why they try to break it up into as many pieces as possible. That’s the kind of thinking that buys us Hurricane Katrina and rogue contractors in Iraq.
Democrats, on the other hand, need to stop being so reflexively anti-government because people understand that while bureacracy is a bad thing, incompetent people being in control of really important government agencies is even worse. The combination of elected leaders (politicians) along with smart guys in a room has led to some of America’s great inventions and achievements (that, like the Internet, end up benefitting private business at the end of the day a billion times over).
There are big problems that need to be solved in our world, and the solution isn’t beyond our grasp. Time to grab the smart guys and throw them in that room.
Related
If You Must Read One Article About Democratic Soul Searching And How To Find Our Way Out Of The Wilderness
It Could Happen
John McCain’s Race-Based Campaign Strategy
{You gave me this line}
But where are you gonna find thirteen smart Democrats?
Frank, step outside sometime.
On a serious note, with the new Election laws in place, you will never have “13 smart guys in a room” on either side of the aisle for a long, long time.
P.S. Hat tip to Hattie for the “Frank never does anything but post to this blog mantra”, which is has already assumed ‘worn - out cliché’ status, and is heading for ‘lame’.
Frank, did you even read what I posted? Based on your two comments, the answer seems like “no”.
It was a joke, Oliver…
Of course, I disagree with this statement:
Maybe, just maybe, the oil industry doesn’t care about finding an alternative to oil. (Setting aside the idea that there is no oil on earth but Middle Eastern oil — definitely not true). But, that doesn’t mean there’s no room in the market for natural gas and electric heat, not to mention coal, long before we get around to “Rube Goldberg” energy alternatives.
And, BTW, if we must look for ways to eliminate our dependence on ME oil, why it is automatically assumed that we can’t touch the ANWR?
If we have no plans to develop a huge tract of land, it is of no economic value to us. Why should we all be doubly penalized so that some rich yuppies can go camping?
And the “if we can put a man on the moon” song won’t play, either. We put a man on the moon, because it was possible, not because it wasn’t. Werner von Braun knew it was possible, before they broke ground at Cape Canaveral.
We put a man on the Moon in 1969. What have we done lately? Is there a colony there? Have we sent a man to Mars? No.
Is the Shuttle little more than a manned sattelite? No.
Is there a permanent, international Space Lab in place? No
But “If we can put a man on the moon”, then, why isn’t there a man on the moon right now?
The people in PetroWorld know that there is oil all over the place, in the US, in Alaska, and all over the world…
IMHO, if you remove all the political obstacles to oil exploration, you can probably get oil for less than a $1.00 a gallon by 2025.
The problem is that we have over a century of development — hard-core, almost desperate at times — into making gasoline more and more efficient. We (the human race) have put enormous energies into getting the most out of petroleum, gasoline, and the internal combustion engine. It would take decades to produce something with anywhere near the combination of portability, compactness, and efficiency of gasoline. Toss in the fantastic infrastructure developed to support it (I find it hard to travel more than a mile without passing near a gas station), and the idea of “a dozen smart guys in a room” finding a feasible alternative is pretty slim.
I don’t agree with his inflammatory language, but Frank_D is right. The short-term and medium-term solution is to simply get more petroleum into the system. We have plenty of it available; it’s just not accessible for political or economic factors. ANWR is one. (The “footprint” of the planned exploitation area is minuscule as a percentage of the total area.) Oil from shale is another, and there are signs that that might soon be economical to develop.
Cheap oil is essential to our current way of life. Oil itself is essential to our civilization. To deny that fact is to profess your own ignorance or idiocy.
J.
Oh…five…Oliver! Sorry dude.
This country ain’t got thirteen smart guys in it. I’m thinking like four: me, Gary Busey, Stephen Hawking and my mailman, that’s it.
this is an unfortunate demonstration of the lack of science training in america today, as well as the magical thinking that the democrats consistently adhere to in all aspects of their lives.
Physical properties don’t care how smart you are. It doesn’t matter if you get a dozen Einsteins in the same room, it doesn’t change the physics of energy. You can’t get something for nothing. More importantly, the solution to oil energy is going to be related to incremental improvements and inventions. It is not something that will be done just by putting a bunch of smart people together and saying “do it”.
This is just like the democratic plan for Iran…”If we just TALK to these people long enough, we can work it out! Now lets sing Kumbayah.” LOL
Over a century ago, Rudolf Diesel ran his engine using peanut oil. Diesel fuel derived from petroleum was (and still is) cheaper, but the technology exists certainly. The technology even exists now to convert currently diesel-powered vehicles to use both petro and biodiesel. Montgomery County’s Ride On operates natural gas buses with more on the way. MTA Maryland just received a shipment of natural gas buses with more on the way. New York City’s MTA also operates natural gas buses. I remember watching on (I think) Discovery Channel a year or two ago, where a racing team had converted a drag racer to ethanol.
So, it’s certainly possible to get Americans using alternative fuels. The question is whether or not the government will get behind alternative fuels the same way they’ve gotten behind petroleum based fuels (in terms of $$$). The American people need to become informed that the technologies exist, that they’re already in use, and can work for them too.
I think you are probably right to some extent mucker..unfortunately we can’t get much oil out of a human body…!
The only piece of good news is that americans can afford the gas better than say, the chinese. The rising prices may actually be a bit of a blessing, in that the developing world is going to get slowed up a bit, allowing the US to hold onto its primary position.
Everyone can just stop worrying and let the Earth fix the problem for us.
BTW, the ANWR “small footprint” argument is a bit misleading.
Yup, drilling for more oil will solve everything.
This isn’t just a question of convenience. We HAVE to solve this problem now.
Though not a realisitic short term solution, Helium-3 sounds pretty cool, and it gives us a reason to put a colony on the Moon (beyond simply “because we can,” of course).
What about OTEC?
In the short term we will probably need to focus on conservation, which seems to be a dirty word in the U.S. Stricter C.A.F.E. standards (no moer SUV loopholes), Gas taxes, “wise use” programs and tax credits, etc. all need to be considered in order to break the U.S. of it’s addiction to the illusion of cheap oil (if you take out government subsidies and tax breaks, our oil isn’t as cheap as it at first seems). We also need to get over the idea that the problem is leftist hippies blocking upstanding oil companies from drilling the living sh*t out of this planet and giving us our God given right to copious amounts of cheap crude.
Shorter Pedro: If it’s impossible, even smart people can’t figure it out.
Thanks captain obvious, now did you have something to add? While you’re at it, apologize for lying repeatedly about the US finding Saddam’s WMD in Iraq.
..
To deny these two facts is indeed impossible. However, it must be pointed out that while there is still plenty of oil to be exploited, the cheap oil is coming to end… and using your argument, what must that mean for our civilization?
I’m thinking something along the lines of Soylent Green.
Ah, America: where we can’t only understand where we’re going except through our entertainment.
hehehe mjb how is the OCD treatment coming along?
Yeah, very good. He He He.
shorter pedro, frank, et al.:
trying to end our unsustainable dependence on fossil fuels: quixotic, impossible, wooly-headed.
trying to democratize the middle east and stamp out terrorism through convential military means: a noble and feasible goal.
If ignorance is bliss then conservatives must be in a constant state of orgasm.
“I m thinking something along the lines of Soylent Green.”
I’m thinking something along the lines of ‘Peak Oil”
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
You guys do know that 20 years ago the idea that we would have a giant world wide computer network capable of transmitting almost the entire knowledge of man to the furthest reaches of the earth was the stuff of fantasy, right?
And yet, here I am, using it. Right now.
The key reason that big oil is not going to independently seek alternative fuels is because crude - either in reserve or in signed contracts - is the biggest and most important item on their balance sheet. The moment that an alternative is found that is cheaper, the value of that asset tends toward zero. I recommend the work of Dr. Hotelling, to anybody interested in the subject.
The simple fact is that there are alternative fuels and they are essentially in our grasp. There is very little additional science to convert algae, corn, sugar beets and other organic matter. It is simple to convert an engine and could be deployed into the future automotive fleet with haste.
I am continuously amazed that people respond to Frank and Dr. Pedro. They show no facility in science, economics or reasoned debate. Their sole purpose here seems to be to make bad jokes and snark perpetually.
In the USA, there are huge areas of windy coastline, as well as areas drenched with sunlight. Even if wind and solar power are not that great, you would think supplying public buildings with this type of power would be enough to kick start it’s use (and then hopefully it’s refinement).
BTW Frank, maybe you should go on that comedy course:p
bryan, they tried that on Cape Cod. It is PERFECT for wind power. Unfortunately, it’s also the favorite hangout of folks like Kennedy, Kerry, and the like, and they killed the plan. They’re all for “clean, renewable energy,” unless it messes with their oceanfront view.
J.
Wouldn t it be so freeing to not have to worry about what we do that causes the Saudis and others to manipulate the price of crude and the repercussions that produces across our economy and into our homes?
I understand your desire to look for alternative sources of energy, but you continue to write about this manipulation on the part of the Saudis as though they’re the guy behind the curtain.
A good portion of the increase in fuel costs over the last several years is supply and demand. Another major factor that hardly anybody discusses is the role of the speculators. It isn’t the Saudis causing prices to jump when the National Weather Service predicts much colder weather than normal for a region. It’s the guys trading oil and gas futures. Mark Cuban has some pretty interesting thoughts on that issue.
I just wish there were some smart guys in the room for short term relief. Instead, all we have is Dick Durbin and his idiotic “windfall profits tax.”
This is really a very good idea, and Oliver deserves a lot of credit for bringing it up.
But Oliver, you lost me here with your typical, hyperbolic, partisan hackery:
In other words, government works, except when it doesn’t, and it doesn’t work when Republicans are in charge.
Bullshit.
The government that failed in Louisiana last summer, as much as you wish it were not so, was not only the federal government. It was the local government who didn’t move the school buses; it was the state government who didn’t call out the national guard; and yes, it was the federal government as well.
Everyone failed here.
I remember who were some of the quickest and most effective responders in the days following Katrina: Wal-Mart (you know, evil, monolithic, exploiter of the working class Wal-Mart?), Home Depot and FedEx.
Evil Corporate America. Private industry.
And do you supppose that the Internet as we know it today came about from some global altruistic urge?
There are people in the world, lots of them, who solve big problems and dream big dreams BECAUSE they have a vested interest, not in spite of it.
Smart Guys In A Room is, and always has been, a great idea, a mechanism for solving big problems and doing monumental things.
But it’s purest folly to attach a partisan value to it, as if the only smart guys must have a (D) following their names.
yes OW we are using the internet.
My point is, the internet didn’t come around because of a dozen “smart guys” sitting in a room (regardless of what gore says). The internent was a government (MILITARY) program offshoot that included private organizations in the form of universities.
More to my point, it didn’t become a phenomonen until desktop computer technology became widely available. Same thing for energy. There will be synergies with new technologies that will all for more efficient energy use/production that will allow us great leaps forward. But it won’t come because all the lefties sit around in a corner and meditate about it…..
Don’t worry, at some point in the near future (say…2030) we’ll have cold fusion, so running out of oil doesn’t concern me. Or is this just wishful thinking?
On a slightly more serious note (as I was mostly serious above, if not extremely optimistic), [this one is a note concerning Jay Tea's reminder that oil is part of America's economic DNA] I thought it necessary to remind him that IC engines have only been around for a few hundred years, and have only been widely used for maybe 150 of them and it was mostly to aid in harvesting crops. It was in an effort to do things more efficiently, right? Just a reminder. It’s not as though the oil is necessary because it’s oil, it’s necessary because of the efficiency and overall power output.
So, where can the money be made now? Why not create/use current technologies that powers the home and the car. A two-fer. The technologies exist (solar, fuel cells, wind, ANWR). The efficiencies do not exist however, and thus people are afraid to invest in other technologies because they don’t look promising enough. But, it’s not as though anyone foresaw how useful IC engines were ultimately going to be, but nothing existed like it in it’s time. It was a cheap and easy way to get power. Now we need a slightly more expensive and more difficult way to get it, but it’s going to take time and money, but it’s necessary. It’s that simple.
For the record, I don’t see any way around using IC engines for certain things like, say, flight or other distant transport across the world/country (trucks, boats, etc.), at least, not in the near future. However, I refuse to believe it would be impossible to construct an airplane with the same or greater payload with some other technology just because we think it’s too hard or that American scientists (or world scientists) are not smart enough. To say something is impossible does not make it so. I don’t see a reason not to fund a program where scientists from around the world perform all sorts of experiments for the sole purpose of developing new technologies free for any company to use. Start off funding at a trickle and see what happens. Make it completely transparent. Classify nothing. Wouldn’t that be something?
It’s the Reagan worship talking for them. Carter royally screwed himself by saying something could and had to be done about America’s energy problem. Conservation, alternative fuels, etc became a priority for his administration. Reagan ran on a platform of Screw That! Now we’re 25 years behind where we could be.
“Cheap oil is essential to our current way of life. Oil itself is essential to our civilization. To deny that fact is to profess your own ignorance or idiocy.”
Now that we’ve heard from The Committee to Save the Horse and Buggy …
Cheap oil is essential to our way of life but it wasn’t always so. The internet is now an essential part of our way of life but it wasn’t always so. The same goes for electricity, the telephone, antibiotics etc. etc. Changing what is “essential” to our way of life is a hallmark of the American imagination and marketplace. Jay Tea suggests that because something IS it must ALWAYS BE. That is such an impoverished world view it almost makes me feel sorry the guy. I say almost because it’s also a dangerously short-sighted world view that can only lead to a more unstable world as nations aggresively vie for more “cheap” oil even as the price of oil — in blood and treasure –goes up and up. What we think of as record high oil prices today will be considered cheap next year and the cylce goes on.
Most of the things that we think of as a leaps forward in technology didn’t really give us something new, rather they improved on something that was already existing. We had means of communication before the telegraph but the telegraph made communication easier and faster. We had means of communicating before email but email gave us something we felt was missing in other forms of communication. Alternative fuels would be an improvement on oil for a whole host of reasons, from the environmental to the geo-political. And yet guys like Jay Tea won’t have it. Nope. For them, oil is what is and so it is what must always be. They would kill progress in the cradle out of some absurd notion of “realism.”
MSM: “Blogger Oliver Willis calls for kidnapping scientists”
“This is the police! Mr. Willis, put down the worldwide computer network and come out with your hands up!”
Man. I see absolutely no good coming of this.
Frame, please learn to read English. I said each of those in the present tense. “IS.” I never said “will always be.” I did say that was unlikely to change in the short or medium term, and that’s a prediction I’ll stand behind — but be delighted to be proven wrong. For example, to use your “horse and buggy” analogy, during World War II at least three nations (The Soviet Union, Germany, and Poland) still extensively used horses for transportation — and that was about 50 years after the invention of the automobile.
Sorry to ruin your little game of turning a serious discussion into yet another round of “bash the other guy,” but thre just might be people who haven’t figured out how you get around actually thinking about and discussing issues.
J.
Bravo JK….!
Nail on the head.
Look, even a complete knuckle-dragging neanderthal like me wants to save energy. I just downsized cars, and am looking into solar electric panels for my house. But these things are extremely expensive per kwH.
The solution is balance. As energy costs for fossil fuels increase, the natural motivation in the market is to start using alternatives, we see it already. It is silly in my opinion to ignore known reserves like ANWR though, while awaiting the next form of power. It is a bandaid, but a properly applied “band-aid” can stop arterial bleeding!
OW…now, you’re starting to sound like Ross Perot.
“Lets just get some smart people together and fix it.”
>>But it won t come because all the lefties sit around in a corner and meditate about it
I find myself curiously in agreement with Pedro.
Right now, there are certainly alternatives to oil. But they’re expensive to produce. Frankly, being “green” doesn’t come cheap. Many of the alternatives leave a whole new set up by-products to deal with (Eg; Hydrogen Cells). There will be a natural evolution of energy efficient technology–but that doesn’t mean we should all sit on our ass and wait for it to happen. It takes time, effort, research and money to develop new technology.
OW has a vision. I admire that, and agree that we need to make energy independence a national priorty. I’m a realist–I also know that it’s not particularly “sexy” issue.
Also, once it becomes very “real,” then we see where people’s real identities lie. But For example, in my very liberal home state, everyone loves the idea of clean energy. However, a group trying to put up a few windmills off Cape Cod is running into snag after snag because they’re facing stiff opposition from property owners see them as unattractive.
Frank does not have a vision. Drilling in ANWR, within the full context of human progress in the 21st century, gets us no closer to energy independence. It is simply applying a bandaid to an arterial laceration. Go, Frank.
Kennedy’s goal of sending a man to the moon was something that was within our grasp in the early 1960’s. We had already safely sent and returned a man from space–somehow, landing someone on the moon didn’t seem like such a daunting mission.
Energy independence will take decades. I see small steps, with the occasional leap forward, as new, cost-effective technologies are developed, and people are willing to allow it into their lives.
JK
What bloody naysayers in the comments here, the definition of Agnew’s nattering nabobs of negativism.
Alternative energies are a much more realistic goal now than when Kennedy challenged us to conquer the Moon by the end of the decade. However, such an endeavor would take a national committment, and such a call for sacrifice is at least three years away.
JT, it almost sounds like you now using a version of the Clintonian argument the definition of the word IS?
Pedro,
In reply to one of your earlier cracks about TALKING to Iran, it appears that at least one republican agrees with those of use who believes in talking to someone before we take your option of launching a nuclear attack on them. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060416/pl_nm/iran_usa_dc_6
“thre just might be people who haven t figured out how you get around actually thinking about and discussing issues.”
Yes, exactly. I’m trying to get “around the issue” but criticizing even the idea of looking into/researching alternative fuels because “Cheap oil is essential to our current way of life.”
And I love the fact that the countries you are now comparing the US to are The Soviet Union, [Nazi] Germany, and Poland during World War II. Awesome vision you have there Jay.
Alternative fuels would be an improvement on oil for a whole host of reasons, from the environmental to the geo-political. And yet guys like Jay Tea won t have it. Nope. For them, oil is what is and so it is what must always be. They would kill progress in the cradle out of some absurd notion of realism.
You read something into Jay Tea’s that I didn’t see. What I got from his comments is pretty much the way I see it. It’s hard to calculate the money that has been invested into using oil over the last 100 years, including R&D, infrastructure, modernization, efficiency, etc. The notion that we can just in a span of 10-15 years do away with all of that for something different is pure folly.
The comparison between it and the Internet is bogus for a number of reasons. One, the Internet was basically built from the ground up. Older technology was a lot easier to replace and in addition, existing technologies (cable lines and phone lines) could still be utilized in order to make service better throught dual use. Fuel refineries have one purpose.
In addition, you have the consumers who are more than willing to pay for alternatives, as long as it isn’t a big hit to their pocketbooks. The problem is, it is a big hit. It’s part of the reason why hybrid sales are stalling. You’re going to pay a pretty big premium for a hybrid vehicle and right now it really isn’t worth the cost. The Accord Hybrid gets combined city/highway rating of 28mpg. The 4 cylinder gas only Accord gets the same rating. And you can get it for $7000-$10000 less. A person would have to spend thousands up front to go from oil heat to solar and the long term savings would take anywhere from 10-15 years to kick in.
It won’t change until people demand change and right now, despite high fuel costs, they’re not demanding it. The reason? The economy is in very good shape and therefore, people may be bitching about the costs (I had to pay $44.75 this morning to put approximately 16 gallons in my Explorer), but there’s no anger to fuel (pardon the pun) a movement to make such big changes.
Let me also point out that it’s not like the change can come gradually anyway, but why rush it when people aren’t clamoring for it?
Correction from earlier post (11:58 am), I meant OTEC, not ANWR in the thrid paragraph (in the aside of fourth “sentence”).
A couple of notes. Hydrogen fuel cells do have a different by-product to deal with. It’s called water. Oh no! Not that! (Yes, there are some that use different types of fuel that have more than water, but there are some cells that have one by-product, H2O).
Ethanol is not a good idea. Those by-products ARE nasty. Unless they can find a way to refine it without making nasties.
Progress could definitely be made towards energy independence if more money was available (than already exists due to private business interest in the “problem”). Jay has asked previously why government funding is necessary or “magic”. I have stated more money for them is obviously better than not more money. With enough time and money, man can accomplish pretty much anything. We continually prove this. We should be able to do it in 50 years. The DOE recently did not fund various activities related to fusion technology. I don’t see a need not to. Spend a few million dollars and see what happens. Something useful will almost certainly come from the best and brightest scientists and engineers sitting around figuring it out. There should be an outfit similar to NASA that consists of say 100 engineers/scientists (constantly rotating staff, with a few constants who rotate out every 10 years or so) to sit around and think of stuff and experiment.
[...] think that the solution to the problems that face the Republic can be solved by putting a bunch of smart guys in a room and locking to the door until they come up with the Bi [...]
“Why rush it when people aren t clamoring for it?”
Yes, and I remember the mass protests in the streets demanding that we go to the moon.
“The notion that we can just in a span of 10-15 years do away with all of that for something different is pure folly.”
Come on. Jay C suggests that the internet is a bogus analogy because of all the infrastructure in place that was repurposed to make it possible then suggests that oil refinaries only have one purpose. He and Jay Tea entirely overlook the vast array of infrastructure that can be repurposed if we were to move to alternative fuels for automobiles. The basic distribution system for alternative fuels is already there in the hundreds of thousands of gas stations all over the country. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the oil companies are not in the gas supply business, they are in the energy supply business whatever that energy source happens to be, whether its ethanol or electricity or whatever. All it would take is a little vision from the existing gas companies and a commercial market for alternative fuels could be up and running in five to ten years. Failing that, the basic business model of driving to the corner to fuel up a car is still already firmly established. It wouldn’t take that long to put competing “alt fuel stations on every other corner. Starbucks opened its first “coffee bar” in 1985. By 2000 it had over 6,000 stores all over the world. And people don’t need coffee as much as they need something to drive their cars.
As to the question of demand, what are you guys arguing? That because there is no demand now we shouldn’t waste our time researching how to make alternative energy more affordable and efficient? How does that make any sense? It’s a neat self-fullfilling prophecy. Jay C suggests that there is no demand for change. Who is he listening to? People like Jay Tea? Great. But on my way to work this morning I heard two conservative leaning jocks on the local talk station lambasting Bush for his failure to lead on the issue of alternative fuels.
Automobiles were a rich man’s game until Ford developped the Model T. Ford produced the first Model T in 1908. He started designing it in 1903. That’s five years from initial designs to the final product that revolutionized America.
You can also look to other industries that have gone through and are going through radical technological transformations. The film industry converted both its production facilities and its nationwide theaters to sound in less than five years, between 1928 ans 1930. In the next five years the entire industry will have shifted to a digital distribution and exhibition model. It’s not impossible to do what needs to be done to make what appears to be “essential” today little more than a curio tomorrow. All it takes is a little vision which both Jay’s seem to lack.
I might add, there was no audience demand for sound films in 1927 when The Jazz SInger cmae out. The Warner Bros, then a minor studio, was looking for a competitive edge over larger studios such as MGM which controlled the most important A-run theaters in the country. The Warners couldn’t afford the opulent orchestras that MGM had playing in its New York movie palaces so they turned to recorded sync sound, a technology that had been around since the the mid-teens if not earlier, to record the orchestras they couldn’t afford to hire for live performances.
And in case anyone thinks it was an easy move from sound to silent films the studios had to change EVERYTHING from wiring theaters for sound to developping new stuido arc lamps that didn’t buzz to new silent running cameras to creating dozens of new postions from sound technicians to screenwriters. The point being is that major Industries undergo radical technology changes all the time. All this naysaying is just dinosaur thinking.
You guys act like we aren’t actually looking at alternative energy sources. The search is one, in a big way….Just in the DOE alone…Bush requested 2 Large…..
The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce America s dependence on imported energy sources. The FY 2007 DOE budget requests $2.1 billion to meet these goals, an increase of $381 million over FY 2006. Funding will help develop clean, affordable sources of energy that will help reduce the use of fossil fuels and lead to changes in the way we power our homes, businesses and cars.
so why all the liberal mewling?
2.1 billion? Great. That’s (almost) a whole 1/1000th of the total federal budget.
Trouble is we can’t afford any more since the Bush regime and its idiot war, in tandem with the republican congress, has already blown our deficit to the breaking point.
No child left behind: except for our children and grandchildren. We’re leaving them a crippling debt and a f*cked-up environment.
And regardless of how much money he puts into it, we have a “leader” in the white house who is incapable of inspiring the people to any extraordinary effort or sacrifice. How could he, when he has made neither in his entire life?
“Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which he promoted in a February tour of research sites, would inject badly needed money into alternative-fuel programs.
Critics say the commitment is paltry. Bush’s fiscal 2007 budget seeks about $150 million for biofuels and $290 million for hydrogen-related research. By comparison, the government spends an estimated $150 million a day in Iraq.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-altfuels16apr16,1,5077384.story?coll=la-headlines-business
It’s an article about how no one is clamoring for alternative fuels.
Frame, you’re presenting apples and oranges comparisons. The movie industry made such changes because they knew it would mean more money for them. Introducing sound into films was a no-brainer. The investment they made brought them profits worth seven times what they put into it. Audiences were wowed and wanted more. That’s why they proceeded to turn things around. As for the digital age, it’s also a no-brainer for the studios. Shooting in digital is cheaper. It keeps production costs down quite a bit.
The public has been introduced to hybrid vehicles. They’ve been introduced to solar energy. Guess what? It hasn’t taken. Hybrid sales have slowed. Honda dealers in March sold 581 Accord hybrids. They sold close to 30,000 non-hybrid accords.
The technology to move from oil to other alternatives is already there. The demand is not. Why? Because there’s no cost benefit at this point and you’re going to have a hard time selling the average Joe on the idea of having to cough up thousands of dollars more right now, because it might start saving him money 15 years from now.
It’s not dinosaur thinking. It’s called pragmatism.
pedro, I seem to have reduced you to gibbering lunacy.
Wasn’t too difficult, but a good day’s work, if I do say so myself.
I take it from your sh*t-eating screech that realize….
a) that 1/1000 of the federal budget is a paltry sum to confront what threatens to be a crippling problem within our children’s lifetime, and that 2.1 billion is dumped down the toilet bowl of Bush’s idiot war every week or so.
b) that Bush has absolutely no moral authority and no auctoritas.
uh….yea, sure wilbur….whatever you say.
I didn’t see anyone reference it here, but Steven den Beste answered this exact same question in detail on his (now sadly defunct) blog almost two years ago: “A New Manhattan Project.”
He gave a list of five criteria that an “alternative energy source” must better satisfy than petroleum already does, if it indeed is to be a replacement source of energy:
He concludes:
Perhaps if we were to actually specify a problem (e.g. “build a 1000 square mile array of wind turbines,” or “devise a method of producing 50,000,000 gallons of biodiesel anually that is less expensive than refining petroleum”) then we could make progress. A dream is nice, but engineers don’t fulfill dreams. They solve problems.
“The technology to move from oil to other alternatives is already there. The demand is not. Why?”
Trust me. I’m not comparing apples to oranges. The technology for sound films, wide screen films and color films was all there ready to be put to use in the 1920s. But it wasn’t. The demand wasn’t there on the studio side to make the change: They were already making money hand over fist with black and white silent films. Then one upstart studio looking for an edge over the others put in the time and money to take the technology that was there and make it work for them. And they sold the hell out of it and changed the business forever. The studios didn’t switch to color or widescreen until TV put the fear of god into them. The oil companies and this government need to recognize that its time to change or start dying.
You say that companies would have a hard time selling the average Joe on the idea of having to cough up thousands of dollars more right now, because it wouldn’t start saving him money 15 years from now. But why does that mean we shouldn’t put money into research and investment today? That’s what I don’t understand about your argument. The basic technology is there now. What happens five or ten years from now with serious money spent on research? Five years from now a guy could buy a car that runs alternative fuel and save money and know that he’s driving around in a real example of American ingenuity, confident that he’s making this country more independent, more livable, more secure. That’s what’s at stake here. If you want to get there you have to start now and that requires leadership. Where’s the leadership coming from? From Bush? Gimme a break. A few hundred million more in the budget and a scolding in a few speeches all to promote drilling in ANWR ain’t going to do it.
uh& .yea, sure wilbur& .whatever you say.
Hoping sarcasm will disguise the fact that you’re full of it, pedro? Sorry, podner, that hat has no cattle.
I am always amazed at the ability of Oliver’s sycophants to turn ANY thread into Bush-bashing. It would obsessive paranoids envious.
J.
Mike, I wouldn’t bother bringing up Den Beste. That kind of sheer brainpower tends to reduce these folks to gibbering, drooling, limp piles of flesh.
I know it’s sometimes hard to spot the difference between that and their normal state, but trust me — it’s considerably worse.
Don’t risk it. It’s not worth it. Not even for the slim chance that one or two of them will have their heads explode or burst into flames.
J.
In the spring of 1967 at the University of Michigan, ARPA held its yearly meeting of the “principle investigators” from each of its university and other contractors. (ARPA draft, III-25) …
“At the meeting it was agreed that work could begin on the conventions to be used for exchanging messages between any pair of computers in the proposed network
Frank Westervelt, then of the University of Michigan, was picked to write a position paper on these areas of communication, an ad hoc ‘Communication Group’ was selected from among the institutions represented, and a meeting of the group scheduled.” (ARPA draft, III-26)
In order to develop this network of varied computers, two main problems had to be solved:
” 1. To construct a ’subnetwork’ consisting of telephone circuits and switching nodes whose reliability, delay characteristics, capacity, and cost would facilitate resource sharing among computers on the network.
2. To understand , design, and implement the protocols and procedures within the operating systems of each connected computer, in order to allow the use of the new subnetwork by the computers in sharing resources.” (ARPA not draft, II-8)
It took nearly 30 years for there to be a user friendly Internet (Netscape)
I am always amazed at the ability of Oliver s sycophants to turn ANY thread into Bush-bashing.
I am always amazed at the way Bush’s catamites try to avoid any debate on the administration’s shortcomings by sputtering “bushhate!” “bushbashing!”
This thread is about the country’s energy policy, Jay. In what universe is the performance of the federal executive off-topic in such a discussion?
Let’s see if any of your right-wing “sheer brainpower” can deal with this simple fact: Bush’s war in Iraq spends 2.1 billion every week or so, but 2.1 billion -and zero leadership - is all Bush wants to give toward solving a problem that haunts our children’s future. Responsible governance? I report, you decide.
Wilbur, that almost makes sense. Nice try.
But if you look back on the actual DISCUSSION (you know, the one about the topic at hand), people were discussing the feasibility of various plans, schemes, and ideas. They were also citing historical precedents for such revolutionary schemes. Not everything revolves around the war in Iraq, or how much of a big mean old doodyhead Bush is. Are you bringing that up because it’s all you have to bring to the table? If so, kindly hush and let the grownups have a civil conversation. It’s a novelty around these parts. And if not, please feel free to bring up salient points.
Oh, and “catamites?” Nice word choice. Refreshingly original in this context, hadn’t seen that word for a while. A decent change of pace from the usual vitriol. A fair rebuttal to my use of “sycophants” (which I have to admit was a bit of a stretch — “amen corner” or “echo chamber” might have been a wiser choice.) Insulting, to be true, and moderately repulsive, but if I didn’t have a thick skin I wouldn’t comment around these parts — or blog at all. My standard reply fits here: “I’ve been called worse than that by better than you.”
Anyway… back to the original point: yeah, there is no hard-and-fast reason why the existing gasoline infrastructure couldn’t be converted to another form of energy, but there is one hell of an economic one: in the last few years, changing environmental laws have forced many gas stations to replace their underground tanks — at tremendous cost. (I’ve seen five and six figure estimates for a single tank.) That was simply replacing the tank with one that does the exact same thing for the exact same substance. To replace the entire pumping system to handle some hypothetical new substance, with a different density, different composition, different chemical properties, different effect on tank materials, different flow rates… I’d be willing to bet that such a change would essentially require replacing every single element of the pumping apparatus, and might even require brand-new types of equipment that hasn’t even been designed yet.
As I said, I hope I’m wrong and would be delighted to be proven wrong. But at heart, I think of myself as a pragmatist, and I think that it’s going to take a major crisis — one like the gas shortages of the 70’s on an even greater scale, or the equivalent of another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor — to get things going. After all, it wasn’t until World War II was under way that the Manhattan Project really got beyond the “interesting theories” stages.
J.
Frame, I understand your reasoning, but the comparison still does not hold up. Yes, one studio took a chance and it cost them $500K which was a lot of money back then. But ‘The Jazz Singer’ took in $3.5 million which was a ton of money back then. The movie industry changed because they saw the money that could be made with movies that had sound.
Yes, the basic technology for alternative fuel is there, but the infrastructure is not and the oil companies are making tons of money, so what is their motivation for change? Gas prices are high, but where’s the outrage from the public? It isn’t there. I don’t like it at all, but I have to deal with it as do most people who don’t live in a major metropolitan area with access to mass transit.
I agree with what Jay Tea says. It’s going to take some kind of major crisis for these changes to take place any time soon. If oil were to keep going up and we got to a point where people were paying $4-$5 for a gallon of gas, it could happen sooner rather than later, but I don’t think we’ll get that far. Right now the cost of oil is all based on speculation. The people in the market know the fundamentals don’t justify $72 a barrel. There are no supply shortages and the demand isn’t there. It’s almost like the market in the late 90’s. Yahoo! was $400 a share at one point with no justification for that cost. The speculators made out like bandits when that bubble burst. The losers were the ones who thought trading stocks was so easy. It’s the same now. People shouldn’t fuck around in the commodities market unless they really know what they are doing because of the volatility. Sooner or later, it will crash and a lot of people will get burned.
It would take leadership Jay C. Bold call-for-sacrifice leadership.
Midderpidge, spare me the slogans. Please give us some details of this bold call-for-sacrifice leadership.
Another free-marketer bites the dust.
Wasn’t me who brought up Bush’s budget, JT. That was one of your fellow catamites (glad you like the word!)
Another free-marketer bites the dust.
Nobody was yipping about the free market when oil was $18 a barrel and gas was a buck a gallon.
Why is it that Moore’s law has not been applied to this problem? If energy efficiency increased at the same rate as computer processing power, most cars would get around 80-95 mpg by now. I’m still waiting for my SkyCar.
It’s a racket to the highest degree, that’s why Moore’s Law is not applied to this problem. Also, trying to apply Moore’s Law to anything other than transistor size is sort of silly, especially since it’s not so much a law, but more of a rule of thumb.
The racket is the auto industry is in bed with oil companies. You know higher ups own stocks in both companies. The only way it’s going to happen is via foreign competition, and that will be here soon enough. It’s going to be like the 80s all over again, when we got our collective ass handed to us due to Mr. Toyoda. And, of course, due to the crap leadership of the Big 3 in the late 70s and early 80s.
Bottom line: if we demand money be spent on this, it will be, so let’s start demanding it!
But now that it’s $70 a barrel, you’re ready to blame “the speculators.” I thought open markets were supposed to moderate prices. Why have you turned against free market principles, Jay?
Ah, the good old days.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml
Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of the administration that’s been in charge while the price of gasoline has gone steadily upward. In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.
As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or jawbone, Mideast oil producers to increase output.
A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.
But now that it s $70 a barrel, you re ready to blame the speculators. I thought open markets were supposed to moderate prices. Why have you turned against free market principles, Jay?
I wouldn’t call it ‘blame.’ All I’m doing is a) Correcting Oliver who seems to think OPEC has the power to move the prices the way they do, and b) make people realize that the prices as they are now are not because of the fundamentals (supply and demand). I’m merely pointing out a fact.
And what are you talking about with the free market moderating prices? In the commodities game, when noncommercial traders (the hedge fund and others that don’t actually produce or use oil) start buying up lots of futures contracts speculating that prices will go up higher (especially in the short term). More futures contracts are bought, rather than sold. As such, this works to drive up the price, especially if an oil company wants to sell a December contract and some fund manager goes and puts in a super high bid and then he turns it around and flips it to somebody else who thinks the recent transaction will lead to higher prices. And it continues.
There’s a lot of that action right now. Stuff like this does not last forever, but right now a lot of people still think there is an upside (the situation in Iran, the problems in Nigeria, etc) but it will sort itself out and some people will make a lot of money on the downside, but some people will lose big because they would have gotten in too late.
Stop right there.
For every buyer, there is a seller. That’s rule #1 of markets.
For every “speculator” who buys the rights for a $70 barrel of oil six months from now, there’s a seller who’s willing to deliver that oil. If the bidding outruns “the fundamentals” as you would have it, the number of sellers willing to provide oil increases.
If you’re genuinely a believer in free markets, then more participation–even from those awful non-producing, non-consuming “speculators”–creates market stability and efficient prices.
For some reason, you’re making the case that those free market mechanisms have, at least temporarily, failed.
Many thanks to Factcheck for more useless information and for once again failing to contribute in any way shape or form anything meaningful to the discussion.
For every buyer, there is a seller. That s rule #1 of markets.
Quaker, I was referring to an investors own positions. Their purchases are going to outnumber their sales and that is the case at this point. It’s pretty simple. You go long right now on your April/June, and then you sell that at a nice profit to cover your July/Sep sales.
If you re genuinely a believer in free markets, then more participation even from those awful non-producing, non-consuming speculators creates market stability and efficient prices.
For some reason, you re making the case that those free market mechanisms have, at least temporarily, failed.
Quaker, you’re confusing the consumer market with the financial market. They don’t work the same way. Part of the reason (and sometimes like in this instance, a good part of the reason) why stocks and commodity prices increase or decrease is because of the buy and selling of others. Right now, there are a lot of buyers, but not a lot of sellers. Therefore, you get people bidding more for these contracts, thereby inflating the price. Often it happens in reverse. People cannot find buyers and therefore the price drops. This has nothing to do with the free market failing. Nobody would say the free market was failing when oil was $18 a barrel, undervalued and some people were paying 88 cents a for a gallon of gas. Apparently it only ‘fails’ when prices go up.
You can’t get around the fact that every contract purchased is bought from somebody–a seller. Every single transaction involves both a buyer and a seller who strike a deal that they both believe is to their own advantage.
Let’s look at your “simple” example:
By “go long,” you mean you buy the rights to purchase oil at a fixed price in the future. From whom do you buy those rights? And when you sell at a nice profit (assuming your contract has risen in value), who do you sell to?
How does that work? If there are more buyers than sellers, who are the buyers buying from? You can’t buy unless there’s someone else willing to sell