Yeah. I think personally that part of the problem is the pushback from green groups against nuclear, which seems to have led to a drastically decreased funding initiative compared to wind/solar renewables. Less money = slower progress.
That in the fact that, you know, we’re messing with the fundamental building blocks of nature. At that point only so much you can do to bend the rules it seems.
I still like my idea of shooting it into the sun .
Yeah, agreed, but I don’t like the idea of punishing the end consumer with high taxes. I think it should be a positive incentive rather than a punitive fee.
The difference, in my mind, is the risk benefit analysis and my belief that Solar will turn out to be a far more powerful/useful technology.
With nuclear we have no idea, literally none, on how to make it safe. Our only ideas are how to bury horrendously toxic waste incrementally better. But even if we figure that out, there are still the risks associated with the extreme radioactivity present at the enrichment sites and power plants themselves. So best case, we produce very efficient energy with very dangerous material.
With solar, the possibilities are nearly endless on how to use it, where to use it, and there arent any real known dangers (besides melanoma), and it can be used everywhere to power everything. And the source of the energy is free and is projected to last for billions more years, and is present EVERYWHERE in the galaxy in known quantities.
Im not arguing that nuclear is evil, i just think resources would be much better allocated towards the development of solar energy based infrastructure, or possibly other green tech.
Well, that’s not strictly true, if the liquid salt generator stuff is accurate. Nuclear is also much much safer than petro, albeit with some much more scary fat tail risks, which can be managed by not building them near fault lines or letting communists build them .
They can also be built in places like my home, where the sun is present but not involved. We’re all not so blessed as Cali in that regard.
Where I live (Seattle area), likely gets less sun than where you are. And with better tech, cloudy places will likely be able to get sufficient power. Then there are the sattelites that can beam concentrated light back to capture stations on earth. Etc.
Haven’t heard about liquid salt generators. Sounds promising though. But you’re right, the fat tail risks scare me.
Since we will no longer be pipe lining petro, we fill the 1.4(?) million miles with water charged with impurities and ions and use them as massive transmission lines from the red states where there are no people of consequence.
I think you got that backwards. Plastics would get less expensive if we didn’t burn oil as fuel.
What it does mean is that the higher cost producers (like the ones on US territory) would likely leave the market, as they can’t make a profit selling oil for a lower price.
That may be seen as a national security risk, in which case the US government may decide to subsidize some oil production so it has it’s own supply.
I would just make it a psychological trick on people. Tax at the pump, but have all the tax go back in refunds. Then it would end up being an incentive to be efficient as the people who buy efficient cars would pay less extra at the pump compared to what they get in a refund.
It would likely end up being a redistribution as many refunds are.
Next door engineer neighbor quit a VP job at Trane to join a wind turbine battery company (with ownership potential) about 7 years ago. He left after 3 years to go back to a/c industry.
Also have a Ph D cousin in law that has done technical consultation for years and now has a tracking solar receptor startup. They don’t claim any improvement in storage, which in itself is one of the most toxic industries, due to the heavy metals.
To clarify, i would love to jump all over solar for myself. I built an ultra insulated couple of houses and researched geothermal before nixing due to costs.
I took a look at your bullet points. You are correct on some green energy being much more expensive compared to non-green alternatives. Some are non starters.
I am not some eco Nazi or anything. I think some of the green stuff is just common sense to do. Using an extra blanket and turning the heat down in the winter is green and economically great (for the home owner at least). I think solar panels on roofs in the southwest are pretty good. I think wind could potentially replace more and more fossil fuel energy. In some areas of my state one can opt for wind only power, and the difference in price is like going from $0.10/kwhr to $0.12/kwhr. It does cost more, but not by much currently.
I think with solar there is a lot of room for scientific discovery still. They have come a long way if you look at the efficiency and cost of manufacture in the last 30 years. If we could even get 1/4 the gains we did in the last 30 years it would be a game changer (I think efficiency has increased in multiples over the last about 30 years, and cost is about a quarter, but for a much more efficient panel).
Interesting little read on the materials for Green that the US does not have available.
We better get the collection and transmission lines in place for the hot air and thumb scrolls generators that we have large capacity in place.
I believe so, but not my area. I do believe there are reuse pathways now. Though my limited knowledge recalls there are also different fuel types so perhaps only some of them are reusable.
Outstanding reference, 10/10. Maybe we can pump some of that stuff into politicians chambers. We shouldn’t take them as seriously as we do, we know they’re all jokers.
May 2019
“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man.”
"They’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.
Feb 2021
“Last night I was on the phone with for two straight hours with Xi Jinping,” Biden told reporters in the Oval Office. "It was a good conversation, I know him well, we spent a lot of time together over the years I was vice president, but if we don’t get moving, they’re going to eat our lunch.
Regardless of the massive economic and social blackswan event that happened in the time between those two statements, do you agree or disagree with the sentiment that “we need to get moving or china is going to eat our lunch”?
I agree. I think china will take every inch that is we give them. IMO, far too many of our citizens are complacent and have lost what it actually means to work hard and sacrifice for delayed gratification or a long term goal so we vote and think for instant, superficial gratification. Now, how we go about making sure our lunch stays ours is real complicated… what policies has biden put forth concerning china (trade, militarism, etc)?
.