Thursday, May 22, 2008

My Grand Plan

Wow, I've really slacked off on the whole blog thing. StumbleUpon has been my social media medium of choice lately, if for no other reason than it doesn't require me to think much. And it has pictures... ooooh, pretty pictures...

But thinking I've been doing. Some of that was in conjunction with school (another semester down, three more to go), and some of that was as a result of where I think we, as in the good ol' US of A, are headed if we don't pull our head out. Pardon the War & Peace post, but some assumptions need to be explained lest you think I'm whack.

One of my classes this semester was antitrust. I thought it would be good for a would-be corporate lawyer to know how corporations can get themselves into trouble. It seems intuitively obvious that the powers that be frown if you try to take over the world, or your little commercial corner of it, and yet that doesn't seem to stop corporate Dr. Evils from trying to do so. Now don't get me wrong--I still believe in big "bidness" and the wonders of capitalism. But, I think my free market brethren have turned a blind eye to Big Oil, and I fear for the fate of the Republic if we don't take steps now to head off the economic disaster that we're hurtling toward at $4.00 a gallon.

Gasoline/diesel--automotive petrol--is not a "normal" good in an economic sense. Its demand curve is inelastic, which is to say demand for gasoline remains relatively stable regardless of the price, at least in this country. This is because the US is geographically expansive and the dominant form of transportation used to traverse this expanse, namely cars and trucks, uses gas or diesel almost exclusively. Consequently, the price of anything that requires transportation by car or truck will rise and fall (heh!) with the price of fuel. Now imagine the price of goods when the price of gasoline climbs to $12.00 a gallon, as predicted by some analysts. The price of goods in and of itself isn't a big deal if wages rise accordingly, but unless you make your living one job at a time and can raise your rates accordingly, it's almost a certainty that wages won't keep up with the cost of living. No one gets weekly or monthly COLA increases, so this will then impact consumer spending and consumer confidence. For all the bad-mouth consumerism gets, it *is* what drives our economy, so if people aren't buying, companies aren't profiting, resulting in the layoff of the already non-buying people. Vicious circle much?

So, what to do... what to do... I know! The government should get into the gas station business! Well, not the gas station business so much as the energy station business, with energy being the generic term for hydrogen and electricity. Now being the paleo-conservative I am, I loathe government involvement in business about as much as the next sane guy, but there's a time to stick to your ideological guns, and there's a time to acknowledge that sometimes--sometimes--government is the answer. The federal government is good at doing things which are cost-prohibitive for states and municipalities, like maintaining a standing army or building an interstate highway system, and doing things which aren't profitable for business to do, like providing healthcare to the indigent and performing research that has little commercial value. Of course the production, distribution and sale of petroleum is lucrative on a scale few of us can imagine, but no one in their right mind would open a station that sells hydrogen and electricity for alternative-fuel vehicles because there simply aren't enough of such vehicles to make that venture profitable. It's a chicken/egg problem. Let's have the feds create an egg so private enterprise can grow it into a chicken... or a turkey; your mileage may vary.

I propose that the feds start buying out stations, or, dare I say it... use... eminent domain to secure the properties (I am *so* going to lose my standing with the vast rightwing conspiracy™). I don't have a good sense (some say any) as to what the saturation point would be, but I don't think it would take all that many stations to get the ball rolling... say, one station every 20 square miles in a major metropolitan area. Refit these stations with equipment like this (the Danes are way ahead of us on this).

Now it's not enough to simply build energy stations; you need customers. Governments can take the lead in converting vehicles to hydrogen, but that's a mere drop in the fuel cell as compared to what the driving public uses. No, we need to be driving this or this or any number of other hydrogen-powered vehicles as seen on Hydro Kevin's Hydrogen Cars & Vehicles. I might even go so far as to mandate that auto manufacturers produce a certain percentage of hydrogen-powered vehicles for sale in the US market by year such & such.

As a rule, new technology tends to cost more than old technology. Some of that is driven by the lack of economies of scale, and some of that comes from market forces, namely, people are willing to pay a pretty penny for shiny new toys. Hydrogen cars may be more expensive at the outset, but I would advocate a tax credit for their purchase to offset the higher cost. As to hydrogen fuel, the cost of such poses an interesting question--how low do you go when you're selling government-subsidized fuel? Do we want to drive the oil companies out of business? I hope not, but I do want to encourage them to take over the business of producing and selling hydrogen with the same ubiquity as gas. The majority of profit for oil companies and the majority of cost for consumers comes in the sale of crude. At roughly $120 a barrel, about $2.70 of the price you pay at the pump for each gallon of gas went to the purchase of the crude. Problem is, there's not a lot of competition when it comes to producing crude, and the cartel that produces the most is overt in controlling price; cartels are, by definition, anticompetitive. The price at the pump also reflects the cost of refinement, distribution, sales and marketing, but the second largest chunk of change of the pump price goes to taxes--roughly 20%. Taxing goods which are not economically "normal" is great for revenues because government is guaranteed a steady stream of income regardless of what price that good is sold. However, taxing gas when the price of gas threatens to tank our economy is not so great, and it should be stopped or curtailed. Having two goals of encouraging the transition to hydrogen and reducing the cost of petroleum, I would set the pump price for hydrogen at maybe $1.50 a compressed gallon... maybe a buck, maybe two. Yes, the oil companies will scream bloody murder that they can't compete and that the government is trying to drive them out of business. True, they can't compete when oil sells for $120 a barrel, so start selling something they can compete in. With competition, the price of oil will drop. Whether you drive a hydrogen- or gas-powered car, you'll have more money in your pocket under my grand plan.

Of course once we transition to a hydrogen-based economy, we still have some of the same issues we face with petroleum, the primary being a lack of competition. There may be new entrants into the hydrogen market, but just as we have an oligopoly on the production of petroleum, so too is there an oligopoly on the distribution and sale of gas. This is because the market is defined differently. In terms of production, the market is global; in terms of distribution, the market is the corner where you notice you're running on empty. The purchase of gas isn't planned, so consumers are largely dependent on what fuel costs at a given corner. Gas stations act collusively in that they set prices within a penny of each other. Some may see that as perfect competition, but gas is bought on futures contracts, so it's highly unlikely the gas used to supply four stations on any given corner was bought at precisely the same price. If hydrogen were to become the dominant automotive fuel, we could see the same oligopolistic behavior as we do now with gas. It's useful to note that where monopolies are granted or allowed to exist, such as public utilities, they're regulated. If the government were to get out of the energy station business, which it eventually should, some form of regulation needs to be implemented to keep what is the lifeblood of our economy at a reasonable price that allows for producers to profit, but not at the expense of throwing out the economic baby with the bath water.

So there you have it. I'm hoping some politician will steal my idea. In the meantime, feel free to pick it apart.

5 comments:

Scott Johnson said...

Damn. Been brewing this for some time, haven't you?

I haven't the time to digest it tonight, but I will be back soon. At first glance, I think Kelley's spiked your drink. :)

And you've already been linked, so the ideas are spreading!
http://toasterauction.com/2008/05/29/my-grand-plan/

Scott Johnson said...

"Its (oil) demand curve is inelastic, which is to say demand for gasoline remains relatively stable regardless of the price, at least in this country."
But the problem is dependence on exported oil. And with countries like China using/needing more the supply amount has not increased. Thus raising/inflating prices. We have the ability to tap into our own resources. We need to do so soon, regardless of developing new energy technology.

"...there's a time to stick to your ideological guns, and there's a time to acknowledge that sometimes--sometimes--government is the answer."
Yet part of the problem is the government. If Clinton had let drilling in Anwar happen in 1995, we would have less need for exported oil. If, instead of just prohibitng drilling, Clinton had pushed for different energy technologies in 1995, this would have been moot. (Not to bash Clinton exclusively. Just using him as an example of where government could have been the answer already.)

I know. I said I would leave it alone...

Dubber said...

ROFL

Nice porn link, buddy! ;)

I agree that dependence on foreign oil, along with China's increasing demand, inflates the cost of crude, but do we know that domestic oil is any cheaper? It's all sold on the same commodities market at prevailing rates which are influenced by OPEC's production, or lack thereof. I could see domestic oil resulting in lower fuel prices if US oil companies refined oil to gas without any intervening steps and their end product was the gas you buy at the pump, but that's not the case. The oil companies sell their crude to refiners at the market rate.

While I think ANWAR should be tapped as a national strategic reserve, I would require that the oil obtained from that reserve NOT be sold on the open market because the prices for that market are inflated due to anticompetitive behavior on the part of foreign producers. It's not a free market.

As for Clinton, that's why I said "sometimes." Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. I would fault Clinton more for not doing more to encourage the transition to hyrdogen, all the while sitting on ANWAR.

Scott Johnson said...

ROFL

Nice porn link, buddy! ;)


I meant to put the technorati link instead. Your "authority" went up because someone linked you. So when I clicked to see it... Well... Maybe it's a sign that we're screwed... :0

I remember TPTB talking about Anwar (Is it ANWAR? Never seen it written, I guess.) and how it would take years for it to even be a source for oil. My point really is that we shouldn't have waited until it's a crisis. Same with other energy technologies. Anything we do now is too little, too late.
If only a President (any from Nixon on really) had given a Kennedy-like goal and time table with alternate energy technology. Now all that Congress worries about is our carbon footprint.

I still find it odd that even you attack "Big Oil". Back when wells were being capped in the 80's, government didn't give them a hand. (I think they still feel that sting, and don't give Congress a second thought.) I do find it odd that we are mad at businesses for making money. Congress (and the President) would do well to practice the same principle. I would think the pressure should be applied to automakers. They should develop better, more efficient engines. They seem to be the biggest culprit in this fiasco.

I did want to tell you this was well thought out and well presented. I didn't want to rain on your parade. I wouldn't want to get you mad at me. ;)

Dubber said...

LOL

I thought the same thing (we're screwed). :)

I assume that because it's the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, ANWAR or ANWR would be the appropriate acronym. I know the Brits are funny with acronyms with NASA becoming Nasa. Maybe it's the same here.

I agree that's it too little too late to head off a crisis; the crisis has already begun. But it's never too late to take positive action. And while I'm still very much a global warming skeptic (change, yes, warming, not really), a move to hydrogen will also have a positive impact on the environment. Think about it--two-thirds of the oil drilled goes into cars as gas or diesel. Even my ULEV Acura TL still puts something out. With hydrogen, nada.

I'm not attacking Big Oil (is there any other kind?) per se, nor am I against business making money. In fact, my proposal is made out of a desire for business to make more money. The problem, described in economic terms, is an allocative inefficiency that results when you have oligopolistic behavior on the part of producers. More of our money is going toward the purchase of gasoline when it's better spent on something else, whether that's goods and services or buying down debt or investment. There's not enough of a trickle down from Big Oil to warrant putting so much money into the purchase of gas and diesel.

Thing is, we can only extract so much efficiency out of the technology; the problem remains that we're just not making any more oil (ignoring synthetics for the moment). It's time to make the move.

And thanks, but you're just saying that because you'll be in thump range in nine days. ;)

Day by Day by Chris Muir