I agree with SamClem's post #55, which means that I think I disagree with most other posts on this thread.
Maybe I'm reading them incorrectly, but the general impression I get is that many posters believe that we can continue to use just as much energy as we do today, at the same cost, if only the gov't picks the "right" technology to replace oil.
I think that anything that replaces oil is going to be more expensive for a long time.
I don't think that the gov't has a good track record of picking winners. In fact, because of the way Washington works, I can confidently predict that it won't pick winners in the future.
However, I also think that we do need to use a lot less oil.
The market has failed on this one because it doesn't factor in the national security costs of the US creating 25% of the world's demand for oil.
Our oil policy decision is pretty obvious - we tax crude oil and rebate the tax.
For example, we could have a tax of $2 per gallon on crude oil, and get a credit on our FIT of $2,000 per person.
The gov't should spend a little money on some basic research and enforce reasonable pollution laws. But no subsidies for any new technology. If oil is expensive enough, we'll have capital crawling out of the woodwork financing all sorts of new ideas. The best will grow and make the investors rich. The others will shrivel up and leave the investors with nothing. That's more efficient than having the lobbyists and Congress make the decisions. If you think nuclear or solar or wind is a great idea, you'll have plenty of opportunities to help the country and yourself by investing.
But, there's no free lunch. All of these technologies will be more expensive than oil for a long time. We're going to end up using less energy, and spending more per unit, than we do today. We each get to make our own decisions about whether that means living closer to work, driving a smaller vehicle, or whatever. But, we'll make some changes that we'd rather not make. The reason most politicians won't support a crude oil tax is because the word "tax" reminds the voters that this is going to cost them something, and voters (that's us) want to live in a no-cost world.
I thnk it would be worth it. I agree that merely proposing the tax would lower the price of oil. Actually passing it would have a bigger effect. We'd be less dependent on something we can't control, and the various dysfuntional "governments" that control oil supply will have less revenue. When I look at how much those dysfunctional governments hav cost us and will cost us, I see that cutting our oil use is a big net gain.