On 01/30/2013 05:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Craig <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > The danger is in the inefficiency. Electric cars and wind energy, > is not > present in the numbers you envision, because they are more expensive > than proven internal combustion engines and fossil fuel. > > > I do not think so. Take for example, the cost of oil. It is three > dollars a gallon but that does not include the cost of wars that we > fight to secure supplies. If you would add that it would be $5-$10 per > gallon I believe. The cost does not include externalities.
While I agree that the federal government is spending a fortune on war; it's not necessary to secure the supply of oil. Those people in oil exporting countries, rely on the sale of oil as a source of revenue. We don't have to receive the oil directly to benefit from the lower price made by the sale of this oil on the world market. If they don't sell the oil directly to the US, then the other oil-importing countries which buy it, will then need less oil from the world market, which will then free up the world supply, driving the price proportionately lower. > > Or, take the cost of coal-fired electricity. This is cheaper than wind > turbines or nuclear power. However that is only because we do not pay > the full cost. The smoke and particulates from coal kill roughly > 20,000 people per year in the United States. The power companies pay > nothing to their surviving families, and they do nothing to fix the > problem, because these are poor people living downwind of the generators. You may have a point here, but nuclear power is not bearing its true cost either. The Price Anderson Act of 1957 was passed into law when it became apparent that private insurance could not cover the potential damage of a nuclear accident. Only by underwriting the industry, could Congress create an environment where nuclear power could develop. They do this in other industries too. They encouraged oil companies to drill in deep water by limiting their liability to 70 million USD, and by encouraging tax breaks for engaging in such activity. BP took advantage of this moral hazard, which led to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Then they strong-armed BP into paying $20 billion for reparations. > > The market places no value on the lives of poor people living downwind > of coal generators. It places no value on wars for oil. It will do > nothing to prevent us from being inundated with 9 m of water. So I do > not think it is efficient. It works in some limited ways, for some > purposes. Only a free market can assess all the risks and costs, and provide the best product at the cheapest price. If the coal industry is killing people, there should be a court which would allow compensation. Once all costs are considered, then you don't need to force people to choose the cheapest route. That's a natural choice. But all costs need to be included in the product. Craig
