Yes. They’re not mutually exclusive, in fact they’re synergistic.
It ain’t workin’ out that way, is it? Tell us about the Chinese price-dumping that killed Solyndra, and how you cheered for it. :rolleyes: “We get the technology” if we pay what they tell us to pay, is that what you mean? And what do we use for money, if we’re not earning it by making the stuff ourselves?
Well, we can buy from the Germans, too. Maybe they’ll get into a price war with China, but that’s not a good bet.
Fuzzy, where you do you think this new technology is going to appear from, if nobody develops it? The Renewable Tree out back? Come on now. Is it that you don’t think it has to happen, and if so, then yes, you do need to get on the train?
They can be, but there are times when the goal conflict, such as when you slap tariffs on Chinese solar panels that would otherwise be bought and used in the US, thus reducing emissions. This is why politics is a poor way to handle energy policy. There is no way to properly set priorities. Whatever the political need is at the moment, that becomes the short term priority.
The government is the only entity working on energy advancements, or at least paying for them? Perhaps you missed out on the natural gas revolution, which has been driven mostly by the private sector, or 3D printing, which will reduce the need for shipping and trucking?
Oh wait, we can’t have that, that’ll cost politically important jobs. We can only allow advances that will be shipped by the Teamsters.
Im not sure what you are getting at. Mankind for the past 250 years has proven unelievably good at making technological breakthroughs. Mostly without subsidies in place. If the technology works then people will invent it. Human ingenuity has proven to work; government approved subsidies into unproven science is more problematic. The science should come first not the approval of government into certain technologies only. When I say “approval” I mean barrell loads of State subsidies.
I’d be all for greater tax breaks for R&D in energy.
Indeed the science is here already. It has advice us that if we do not control our emissions we will indeed lose our coastal cities in the long run. In the short run we will get them more prone to damage from hurricanes and storms.
Now, to deal with the issue most experts already see that how to control emissions will change from country to country and region to region. The basic error here is to only look at the subsidies from an incomplete view of the real costs we are actually dealing with.
Yes, if there is no acceleration, one of the most frustrating things I have seen is that the IPCC was very conservative with their estimates, but then again, it was clear that since there was no good evidence in the 2007 or even the more recent one of that suspected acceleration the report just punted and we go for the most likely estimate of about a meter of a rise of the oceans by the end of the century.
That is not small potatoes, that still means a lot of money now going to expensive protection of our coastal cities. (Guess what party does not even want to fund or deal with that expense as they do not think this is a problem?) But what about that suspected acceleration? I really hoped it was not going to be as bad as some suspected, but the latest evidence shows that a mess of deniers and even sceptic scientists got it rudely wrong.
I will have to look around but I saw another researcher made the point that if we do not do a concerted effort soon we will most likely find before the end of the century that in less time than the average mortgage a person will find that his home is worthless before he/she finishes paying for it if they live next or close to the coast.
Sorry Mario, but your extremist is in another castle!
I’m on the record on supporting nuclear power as an important piece to deal with the issue, until better battery technology is available, and thanks to the efforts of private industry and government (including subsidies) the situation is changing so much that even nuclear may not be as important.
Hmm? Nuclear is generation, batteries are storage.
That said, there are well-known environmental issues with nuclear, but there are with anything else, too, and yes, it should have a place in the picture.
Fair enough. Im glad to hear you are not of the loony brigade. That it is worthwhile to explore all options in regards to power. Placing most of our eggs into one as yet unproven basket is dangerous to me. PLenty of R&D for all energy research is welcome. Placing more emphasis on solar energy in Arizona and New Mexico is sensible. I live in the UK. I really dont see why we should be experimenting/subsidising solar panels at all, other than in the R&D department. Yet if an individual here in the UK installs a solar panel he or she get all sorts of tax allowances. In deepest darkest Northern England this is next to pointless imo.
Just a nit here, it is true that England would not be big on solar, but the example of Germany shows that solar cells efficiency and deployment are telling many that the limitations that they had before are less of a concern and places that have less sun can still benefit.
(Hilarious bit of FOX news declaring that Germany is sunnier than the USA.)
