Yes. I was thinking it won't be effective in the long run. Harry Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote: > >> I'm not an American, but if one goes by the name of the proposed new >> agency, "The National Energy Efficiency Development Administration", >> it appears to be poorly conceived. In my estimation, if efficiency >> is the goal it will not result in a reduction of the overall demand >> for oil. It will just shift the pattern of oil consumption habits. > > I quibble with that. There is no use for oil except in transportation > and feedstock. I used to be used for power generation but it is not > anymore. In the first oil shock, in the 1970s, improved efficiency > greatly lowered overall energy consumption in the U.S., especially > oil. Improved efficiency would stretch out supplies. I do agree that > what we really need is a replacement for fossil fuels, not methods of > stretching supplies. > > I do not think the Federal Government is the right organization for > this job. It makes no difference whether the new agency is supposedly > independent or not. The government is only good at implementing or > financing specific technology after the exerts agree it is the right > choice. The government has a stellar track record for doing this, for > canals, steamships, telegraphs, the transcontinental railroad, > airports, nuclear weapons, highways, digital computers and so on. It > has had some large failures too, notably cost-effective fission > reactors and plasma fusion. I think it should offer more support for > wind energy, and much less support for fossil fuel extraction > technology, which is where the bulk of Federal R&D dollars go today. > The government, and everyone else, should immediately terminate > biofuels programs which are net energy sink. This is a complicated > way to waste oil and destroy the topsoil, the water table and the ecology. > > - Jed > >
