It surely part of the answer in the short & mid term (say up to 50+ years out).
Petroleum-derived fuels are still the best & most economical way to move automobiles, especially after one factors in the costs of the subsidies ($051-$1.00/gal) congresscritters vomit forth onto the ethanol lobby constituents.
Increasing supply will have an effect on the price point.
Yes (though whether it will be as long as fifty years is debateable), but it doesnt solve the problem - it just delays it, or rather it allows us to continue deluding ourselves that everything is ok and we can carry on as we have been for the past forty years. Does maintaining that delusion justify the billions of dollars cost of new refineries, and the probable environmental damage?
Biofuels are not the answer either, in addition to the subsidy (which you note) they are just another cash crop for people to plant instead of food.
That is a formula for economic catastrophe not seen since Stalin's "Five Year Plans" and Mao's similar wealth-destroying collectivist fantasies.
The best thing gov't can do is get the hell outta the way and let the market make the call & eventual switch. For instance, COTUS subsidizes corn ethanol, about the most sand-poundingly stupid way to produce fuel ethanol. All the while, they set up quotas on cane sugar and Brazilian-produced ethanol: sources that might make ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline.
When it comes to energy, government is the problem and more of it will only make it worse.
We will have to make this change at some stage in the reasonably near future - we can either do it now when we can do it gently and in plenty of time, or we can do it against a backdrop of ever rising fuel prices, savage competition between nations for scarce oil, and a general rush towards a solution - any solution, which is usually when really bad things happen.
As for "the market" making the decision, that is pretty much an impossibility given the scale of the problem and the fact that such a general, unified body does not exist, and large parts of it are in direct opposition to other parts.
Take the current state of affairs for instance - "the market" hasnt seen fit increase the supply of oil in necessary amounts because it is sitting on a commodity that is only ever going to increase in value. Why would "the market" - oil companies - act to diminish the value of that commodity by promoting alternate technologies (before their value is close to the value of the original commodity, of course), or by increasing the supply in order to lower the price?
I am all for the nukes.
I also want to see a whole lot of coal-fired power plants built, since the USA has enough coal to keep the electricity flowing for a LONG time. TXU was going to build a couple nat gas plants and a dozen coal-fired plants...until the Ususal Suspects started caterwauling. Eventually, TXU said "screw it, were getting outta the energy business" and sold themselve to some other company. Good luck to 'em.
Agree with you about the nukes, coal I am less certain about. Would be better IMHO to focus the cash there on renewables.
Outside the super-dense cities in America, the words, "Public Transport," are synonymous with "Unused Money Pit."
Which is why I mentioned the UK perspective - prior to the infamous "Beeching Report" the UK had a massive rail network, the bulk of which was closed because the committee felt (and of course the fact that the chairman was the head of a roadbuilding firm had no bearing on matters) that the road would be a better form of transport for the future.
Needless to say, widespread local opposition was ignored, the routes were closed and torn up, and now councils in nearly every part of the country are trying to get them back again (with varying degrees of success - in Scotland and Wales (which have devolved government) stations and lines are reopening, but in England central government blocks it, favouring airport expansion). (edited to add) The main reason for the reinterest in the railways is that passenger numbers have gone through the roof, and the system is approaching capacity.This is mainly due to the Government (since 1997) continuing tp subsidize the various train operating companies (which in itself is an error, they should renationalize it) and allowed them to charge appropriate ticket prices (one of the main reasons for Beeching finding the railways unprofitable was that successive post-war Governments had not allowed BR to increase ticket prices, as an electoral wheeze - so they ran out of money. It had been reasonably profitable (for a public service) up until then).
