The following is an article from Uncle John’s Triumphant 20th
Anniversary Bathroom Reader

I’ve worked on large research projects financed by the US Dept of Energy. It is my experience that they don’t care what is worked on as long as the budget is big, the powerpoint slides are many, and there are press-conference worthy models to show (so that Congress can be impressed and further increase tehir budget). They continue research on things LONG after they are shown to be losers merely to keep their own budgets up. If researchers spend money too slowly, the DOE gets on their case and warns them that the appropriation may be cut. My expereince has shown me that Gov’t has no business being involved guiding the path of or financing research– the “help” is ultimately a deterrant to finding the best solutions.

You also said, “Energy policy is the domain of the federal government in virtually all countries.” DOAAH! The laws of economics are not open to a popularity vote. Efficient public policy is what it is and what one’s neighbor does wrong matters not in the least. The U.S.’s long slow spiral downward in the years post-WWII to the present resulted from government meddling in every area of the economy and our lives (thank you FDR and LBJ for taking the big steps, others ‘helped’ with smaller incremental ones). Free of government interference, people & corporations in aggregate act rationally and the best choices are ultimately made. Unfettered, entrepreneurs in science and engineering will make the right decisions — that is what happened here throughout the Industrial Revolution and the first half of the 20th century, both in Britain and the US. Britain went socialist before us and subsequently sank faster. We are just a few decades behind in our own descent. Following other countries on their misguided paths to socialism will not restore this country to leadership in innovation.

Straight talk from Sid.

Karl
January 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
@Sid

You seem to mix socialdemocrats (who are, have been or will be governing many western european countries for periods, f.ex. the UK, Germany and Denmark) with socialists - a thing I’m afriad is often the case with people in US (as I’m assuming you are). F.ex. here in DK we have something like 7-10 parties represented in parliament, who span the whole spectrum from the ultimate left to the ultimate right, from die-hard socialists on the left wing over socialdemocrats, center-liberals and conservatives to die-hard nationalists on the right wing.
The soc.democrats tend to lean towards centralized governments, and sometimes some nationalization of a few essential and necessary key industries (transportation, postal services ect.), while the socialists often favour complete nationalization of the whole production apparatus without regards.
To me there’s a distinct difference. Not that I favour soc.democrats by a long shot, but I can well tell the difference between the two. But even many soc.democrats have realised a while ago, that the times of nationalization are over.
Many people here, though, are quite thankful for the welfare societies that amongst others the soc.democrats have provided to the broader masses up through the decades following WW II, that provides for them a steady and decent income or unemployment pay, so they don’t have to think about where the next meal will come from, nor how they’re gonna pay the rent, or pay for the medical bill that will allow them to survive beyond next month - also when their employer decided to cut back on the health care/plan insurance he was supposed to provide for them, to save a few bucks extra for his own already bulging pockets.
I’m quite confident most people in Europe don’t see this as “misguided paths to socialism”… on the contrary. It’s focussing mainly on “the people” who voted them into office, instead of on the businesses - and this, I think, is - or at least ought to be - the prime concern of any government.

I agree completely that private research mostly ensures a much more efficient use of the money spent. But one has to keep in mind, that private enterprises rarely see beyond their own noses (and bottom lines) when planning their reseach. And that much research requires a considerable time to do - sometimes decades. Private enterprises are in it for the profit, no doubt - they’re not filantropic associations… nor do I expect it to be otherwise.

Basic research is not something private enterprises are very inclined to do, because there’s often little or no profit in it, but a lot of investment - time and money, with no guarantee of any payoffs. They are more likely to step in once the basic work is done, and they can see possible business areas emerge. Basic work is thus often done at educational institutions like universities, privately or publicly sponsored… call it research for the sake of research. Often they don’t really know which direction they’re headed for, until they’ve gone done the road for a while - could well be it turns out to be a cul-de-sac… tough luck… start over.

As for new fuel/energy sources specifically… I think there’s little incentive for the big energy companies (oil, gas ect.) to sponsor reseach into new energy sources, as long as the can keep their figures on the bottom lines up. I’m more inclined to think that these companies’ efforts would more likely be counterproductive, to keep their own profit up (which I don’t blame them). And by the time their bottom lines start to dive, the new energy sources would have to be in place to take over.

I agree too that the idea of using food for energy production is plain silly - as is becoming quite apparent by now with the rapidly growing food prices. Clearly the idea was not thought through very well. So back to basic research and think up other solutions…

Rondo
January 7th, 2008 at 5:11 am
How I see here we have few question what we must answer so we will fill better.

1. Is it possible that any country be independent from oil? Now, NO, no chance.

2. What this article tell us? That Danish formula is good? No, it is not good. Windpower central technology is not profitable enough and not effective enough to use this kind of the energy production. Face it, wind power central is not profitable enough. Danish government build them becouase they don’t have rivers in Denmark, they don’t have chance to have electric thermo centrals. About oil in North Sea, I don’t see how can some other country take the same formula when they don’t have North Sea and especially not oil in sea. So much better job was made by “Oslo” about North Sea oil. But of course that Austria cannot use that formula when they don’t have sea, not to mention oil.

So what is point of this article? Wind power central are not profitable at all, every country don’t have a sea or oil, so what is point of this article?

About old Toyota and VW in Denmark? It is true.

About fake Scandinavian stats. Lets look number of the free days for employed people in Denmark and EU? In every country base for calculation is that one week have five work days, in Denmark is six. So on paper they have the most free days in EU when we look number of days, in reality they are not near top when we count that days in weeks. That is just one example of the fake stats, and they are so many.

Also all of those countries on papers have almost highest living standards in world, in reality they don’t have that in Europe. Prices are in the sky, and everything is luxory for average Skandinavian.

Sid Morrison
January 7th, 2008 at 8:33 am
@Karl-
Thanks for the insight. I’m a bit familiar with the German SPD (Social Democratic Party) and its origins in Rosa Luxembourg & Karl Leibknecht (and what happened to them!). I do not know the specifics of the Social Democrat movement in Denmark.

In any event though, as you describe their aims (welfare society, nationalization of certain industries, &c.), they ARE socialists, albeit with a small “s”. That is to say, they may not the Socialist (big “S”) Party, but they are socialists nonetheless. The only difference is that they are “less left” than the Socialist Party. Most Americans (myself included) would consider them on the same continuum of socialism, only the Socialists further down the road to perdition than the Social Democrats. You can bet that whatever the Socialists are advocating now, the Social Democrats will be pushing in 20 or 30 years, though.

As a longtime R&D engineer with fair experience in government misdirection of research, I hold by my assertion that even long term research belongs in the hands of the private sector. Very rare exceptions can be made in time of war or utter national emergency (we aren’t there yet), such as in the Manhattan Project of the early 1940s. That was not the most efficient way to make a bomb, but time was much more important than anything else, so the U.S. government spent gobs of money on it. The project succeeded because a) they had unlimited money and b) because of the nature of the War, they were able to attract the brightest minds in the field, many of whom would have never been involved during peacetime. It was a very rare need, though, and a time when normal market function was rather interupted by anomalous events. My spine always shivers when I hear people waxing poetic about the need for a “Manhattan Project” so solve X, Y, or Z. T’ain’t gonna happen.

Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. If there is huge profit in it, even way out into the future, the private sector will attack and conquer the problem in the most efficient manner. Loser ideas don’t get propped up for years sucking up talent & dollars (Euros, Yen, whatever).

Karl
January 10th, 2008 at 1:11 am
@Sid
Well, there you go - you fail to see the differences between the different parties, and anything to the left (of what btw?) are termed “socialists”. Are people advocating “welfare for all, and not just those who have” in a given society automatically socialists? If so, then I, for one, am a happy “socialist”. I certainly don’t see myself as one, but I have a strong hunch I am seen as such by you, no matter what I say. Politics in the greater part of Europe has a lot more nuances than just black and white (or red and blue, for that matter).

As for the SPD - perhaps you might want to read up on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany (”Today the SPD advocates the modernization of the economy to meet the demands of globalization, but it also stresses the need to address the social needs of workers and society’s disadvantaged.”). They are today, btw, working nicely together with the conservatives CDU in a grand coalition, still fighting the aftereffects of re-unification with socialist East Germany. The Germans know well what the difference between social democrats and socialists are…

We’ve had social democrats in DK for almost 140 years, and while it’s true that they were based on Marxist ideology in the early part of their history, then they have little love left for those theories today… we have several other parties who swear to those. And we know the differences…

Sure, they favour that the state should run busses and trains, so not only people living in bigger towns are serviced by such transportation means, but also 78 year old Mrs. Jensen, who happens to live 15 miles outside of town, and who doesn’t own or even knows how to drive a car. No private company would run a bus route through her neighborhood, because it would not be profitable.
And they favour a public health system, so Mrs. Jensen can have her hip joint replaced, without having to take out a new mortgage in her house… or be told that she’ll just have to live with the pain, if she cannot pay for the operation.
They also favour that something like the postal service should be run by the public, and that libraries and schools are run by the public as well, making it possible for anyone to read books they cannot afford to buy, and get an education, even those who have the talent but who cannot otherwise afford to pay for the education.
If that’s socialism, then we’re all socialists here… I prefer that to a corporate state, where business comes first. No state is more than 3 meals away from a revolution…

“Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. ”

All of these things could not have been made/invented without some basic research in physics and chemistry, which wasn’t done by private enterprises. Einstein, Fermi and Bohr and others did basic research - none of them worked for private businesses. Nor would any private business have let them do what they did if they had worked for them, or had built the equipment they used to make their findings.

@Rondo
“About fake Scandinavian stats. Lets look number of the free days for employed people in Denmark and EU? In every country base for calculation is that one week have five work days, in Denmark is six. So on paper they have the most free days in EU when we look number of days, in reality they are not near top when we count that days in weeks. That is just one example of the fake stats, and they are so many.”
Please show where you get these figures from… you must have them from somewhere? Or are you just making them up as you go along?
In Denmark the normal work week is 5 days (Mo - Fr) - 7 1/2 hours a day - and has been so for many years. Saturdays and Sundays are off, unless you work in service areas like shops. But even then you still only work 37 hours per week.
Anyone working in DK has 6 weeks of (paid) vacation, which translates into 6 x 5 = 30 work days. 5 days are used around Xmas/New Year, and 2 or 3 weeks are usually used for Summer holidays. The remaining weeks can be held at people’s discretion, by agreement with the employer. Add to this the standard public holidays (Easter, Xmas ect.), probably 4-5 days extra per year. That’s facts and no fake.

As for the cars… “It is true” is no working argument - anyone can fling that out. Cars are here by law required to be inspected every other year, and cars who do not live up to the standards at the inspection have the license plates cut, unless they are fixed and pass a renewed inspection 2 weeks later - period.

Sid Morrison
January 10th, 2008 at 9:17 am
@Karl-
“If that’s [a laundry list of nationalized industries & social entitlements] socialism, then we’re all socialists here… ”

Yep, we are in agreement!

Karl
January 12th, 2008 at 12:03 am
TY… says a lot…

John Wallace
June 19th, 2008 at 12:11 am
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA

In the early 1970’s America imported only about 30 percent of its oil. Due mostly to the federal government’s interference in the free market and the passing of legislation by congress that restricts the development of American oil fields, America is now importing 60 percent of its oil with some of that oil coming from countries that are less than friendly to the United States. Our government leaders, including those in congress, have allowed our country to become too dependent upon the oil production levels of foreign nations that has not only resulted in higher prices at the gas pumps, but has also endangered our national security.

The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due mostly to population growth, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added in decades to meet the increases in demand. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. Members of Congress routinely point their fingers at the oil companies that make about eight to ten cents profit on a gallon of gas. In 2004, the US Energy Information Administration reported that the oil industry in the US made $42.6 billion in profits after spending billions of dollars on researching, drilling, transporting and refining their products. On the other hand, in that same year, Federal and State governments collected $58.4 billion in taxes from the oil companies without investing a dime. Who is gouging who? Corporations do not really pay taxes. They just pass along the cost of the taxes to the consumers in the form of higher prices.

The Ethanol subsidy program is a prime example of how our government’s interference in the free market has led to higher prices. Subsidies amounting to $10 billion a year are given to corporate corn farmers, even

In the early 1970’s America imported only about 30 percent of its oil. Due mostly to the federal government’s interference in the free market and the passing of legislation by congress that restricts the development of American oil fields, America is now importing 60 percent of its oil with some of that oil coming from countries that are less than friendly to the United States. Our government leaders, including those in congress, have allowed our country to become too dependent upon the oil production levels of foreign nations that has not only resulted in higher prices at the gas pumps, but has also endangered our national security.

The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due mostly to population growth, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added in decades to meet the increases in demand. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. Members of Congress routinely point their fingers at the oil companies that make about eight to ten cents profit on a gallon of gas. In 2004, the US Energy Information Administration reported that the oil industry in the US made $42.6 billion in profits after spending billions of dollars on researching, drilling, transporting and refining their products. On the other hand, in that same year, Federal and State governments collected $58.4 billion in taxes from the oil companies without investing a dime. Who is gouging who? Corporations do not really pay taxes. They just pass along the cost of the taxes to the consumers in the form of higher prices.

The Ethanol subsidy program is a prime example of how our government’s interference in the free market has led to higher prices. Subsidies amounting to $10 billion a year are given to corporate corn farmers, even though Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline and it takes about 200 pounds of corn to produce enough ethanol to fill the average gas tank. It takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol because corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers. It also takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol is so costly to make that it wouldn't make it in a free market without being subsidized by the government. Ethanol related congressional legislation has resulted in the following:

1) Big corporate corn growers (who are also big campaign contributors) get a $10 billion dollar annual subsidy from the American taxpayers,
2) American consumers wind up paying more for gasoline at the pump because of the ethanol requirement in gasoline, and
3) the program is responsible for dramatic increases in the prices of corn and other grains worldwide, which has led to severe food shortages and food riots in other parts of the world.

How is this government program successful? We need more free market competition and less government interference.

America must approach the issue of energy independence much the same as we did when the USSR put their first Sputnik satellite into orbit. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy motivated the nation and promised to put a man on the moon within 10 years. If we can put a man on the moon, land unmanned space vehicles on Mars, we can surely develop a strategic plan to become energy independent in ten years by increasing the domestic production of oil while at the same time encouraging the development of environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would free America from its dependence on foreign oil. Freedom from oil dependence is also in the best interests of our national security. Depending on foreign governments for our oil supply, some of which may be less than friendly to the United States, is definitely not in the best interest of our nation’s security.

It is time for Congress to stop listening to the socialist environmentalists who would turn our nation into a third world country by prohibiting us from using our own natural resources. America has the natural resources and the technology to solve our energy needs. It is estimated that ANWAR has 10.4 billion barrels of oil which is 200 billion gallons of refined gasoline. The outer continental shelf is estimated to have 86 billion barrels of oil which would be over a trillion gallons of refined gasoline. On top of that there is an estimated availability of 2 trillion barrels of shale oil in the Western United States. If Congress had opened ANWR to drilling a decade ago the nation would be that much closer to lessening its dependency on foreign oil today.

We must meet our energy needs with a 10-year strategic plan that provides a balanced portfolio of drilling, research and development that will ensure our economic and environmental future. The plan should include the following:

DRILL AND DEREGULATE NOW: We should drill for oil and natural gas in the United States, using our best environmentally friendly techniques under our own rigid environmental controls. We should take a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production.

DEVELOP NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY: Congress must repeal federal regulations and taxes that impede the development of new energy sources. Alternative sources should prove their viability in the free market. Any source that truly is cheaper and cleaner, yet still reliable, will not need much government help to develop. I support legislation that will provide investment tax credit to help encourage the development of solar energy, fuel cell and wind energy technology.

REDUCE THE RESTRICTIONS ON COAL, NATURAL GAS AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: I support the repeal of federal regulations that hinder the development of coal, natural gas and nuclear energy and also support the repeal of all federal subsidies granted to these industries. These sources of energy and power will prove their worth in our free-market economy without excessive government interference and subsidies.

Here is the link to the Position Paper in PDF and Word formats:

http://www.FreedomCandidate.com/PositionPaper-EnergyIndependence.pdf

http://www.FreedomCandidate.com/PositionPaper-EnergyIndependence.doc

John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

Yep, we are in agreement!

As for the SPD - perhaps you might want to read up on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany ("Today the SPD advocates the modernization of the economy to meet the demands of globalization, but it also stresses the need to address the social needs of workers and society's disadvantaged."). They are today, btw, working nicely together with the conservatives CDU in a grand coalition, still fighting the aftereffects of re-unification with socialist East Germany. The Germans know well what the difference between social democrats and socialists are...

We've had social democrats in DK for almost 140 years, and while it's true that they were based on Marxist ideology in the early part of their history, then they have little love left for those theories today... we have several other parties who swear to those. And we know the differences...

Sure, they favour that the state should run busses and trains, so not only people living in bigger towns are serviced by such transportation means, but also 78 year old Mrs. Jensen, who happens to live 15 miles outside of town, and who doesn't own or even knows how to drive a car. No private company would run a bus route through her neighborhood, because it would not be profitable.
And they favour a public health system, so Mrs. Jensen can have her hip joint replaced, without having to take out a new mortgage in her house... or be told that she'll just have to live with the pain, if she cannot pay for the operation.
They also favour that something like the postal service should be run by the public, and that libraries and schools are run by the public as well, making it possible for anyone to read books they cannot afford to buy, and get an education, even those who have the talent but who cannot otherwise afford to pay for the education.
If that's socialism, then we're all socialists here... I prefer that to a corporate state, where business comes first. No state is more than 3 meals away from a revolution...

"Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. "

All of these things could not have been made/invented without some basic research in physics and chemistry, which wasn't done by private enterprises. Einstein, Fermi and Bohr and others did basic research - none of them worked for private businesses. Nor would any private business have let them do what they did if they had worked for them, or had built the equipment they used to make their findings.

@Rondo
"About fake Scandinavian stats. Lets look number of the free days for employed people in Denmark and EU? In every country base for calculation is that one week have five work days, in Denmark is six. So on paper they have the most free days in EU when we look number of days, in reality they are not near top when we count that days in weeks. That is just one example of the fake stats, and they are so many."
Please show where you get these figures from... you must have them from somewhere? Or are you just making them up as you go along?
In Denmark the normal work week is 5 days (Mo - Fr) - 7 1/2 hours a day - and has been so for many years. Saturdays and Sundays are off, unless you work in service areas like shops. But even then you still only work 37 hours per week.
Anyone working in DK has 6 weeks of (paid) vacation, which translates into 6 x 5 = 30 work days. 5 days are used around Xmas/New Year, and 2 or 3 weeks are usually used for Summer holidays. The remaining weeks can be held at people's discretion, by agreement with the employer. Add to this the standard public holidays (Easter, Xmas ect.), probably 4-5 days extra per year. That's facts and no fake.

As for the cars... "It is true" is no working argument - anyone can fling that out. Cars are here by law required to be inspected every other year, and cars who do not live up to the standards at the inspection have the license plates cut, unless they are fixed and pass a renewed inspection 2 weeks later - period.