First of all I have no problem being corrected on any false perspectives I may be developing here, that is why I come here. My premise here is that global warming is an impending global threat, worthy of the same kind of attention that we would give to our military. This might mean that globally we have an active force of possibly 20,000,000 people. This would include scientists, laborers, administrative etc. proportionately from all countries.
From what I have been reading there are a lot of scientists and researchers on the biological aspects that are just screaming for more money and the research they are doing is showing very promising results. Why are they having so much trouble getting the funding they need?
My format is off, trying to fix it.
It was the indent to start.
There is a large part of Congress & the Senate that seem to be fighting for Climate Change. They want money for Drill Baby Drill and King Coal, not science to reduce Climate Change. To lower emissions. It is actually scary and hard for me to fathom.
Short term thinking. They think it’s Somebody Else’s Problem and like the status quo gravy train too much to consider upsetting the shovelfuls of money they’re getting from the fossil fuel monopolies.
They don’t realise that the money spent on developing renewables will be paid back just as humongously as fossil fuels, even though there will be a dip for a decade or so before that kicks in. Like I said, short term thinking.
The problem isn’t so much funding as how to lower not only emissions but even energy and resource use while meeting the needs of a global population.
In the same global population, something like 70 pct live on less than $10 daily and want to earn more. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct want them to earn more in order to spend more because their own income and returns on investment are dependent on growing sales of goods and services.
And providing those goods and services means using more energy and resources. And a large proportion of both involve fossil fuels.
One study points out that there is a way to fully transition to not using fuels but the process may require around a century:
and likely because of lag time due to coordination and cooperation between countries and businesses, not to mention the motivation for businesses to develop technologies that allow for that because of a profit motive, which in turn means more consumption of energy and resources.
During WW2, major nations were spending 40% of their GDP per year on military.
I think curing global warming would require spending 2% of GDP per year for the next 30 years. The world is spending something like 0.6% of GDP a year instead.
I think its just human nature. Spending money to avert a problem years down the road isn’t something we do. A lot of people don’t invest in their 401k even if they are given a company match. People don’t want to spend money today for something that’ll benefit them 30 years from now. Even though climate change is having effects now, its just it’ll be even worse in a few decades.
According to a new paper by two researchers at the University of California – Davis, it would take 131 years for replacement of gasoline and diesel given the current pace of research and development.
That “given the current pace” is really a call to action, not a call to keep the pace of change the same.
Well, I’m not sure they are having issues getting funding. I’d need to see that demonstrated. From what I can tell, there is a lot of funding at the research and study level, though I don’t know whether it’s sufficient or as you are stating it’s vastly underfunded…it’s probably debatable based on whatever criteria you are looking for to demonstrate it’s enough, not enough or too much.
Certainly, there is a lot of money in R&D for various green energy solutions, though often they aren’t really all that helpful though vast sums are poured into them. That’s one of the problems…a lot of the time solutions are being implemented because of emotion, not practical engineering or with an eye towards solving the problem in toto, instead of piecemeal.
That’s why we have groups shutting down nuclear power plants and replacing them with wind and solar, only to discover that wind doesn’t blow constantly at the right speeds and sometimes the sun doesn’t shine, and that you need energy all the time. So, they either build natural gas power plants or turn the coal plants back on because if you don’t do that then a lot of people and industry is without constant access to power, and bad things happen. This doesn’t even get into the market for natural gas and coal impacted by emergency buying, which is happening in several countries right now due to shortfalls.
So, it’s WHAT you want to fund and how, and how it all works together to actually solve the problem. For a long time, the goal was to make solar cheap per unit of energy generated. And they did that. Sadly, this didn’t make the sunshine longer, so you still had the original problem, which is how do you store the electricity you gain during the day to use when the sun isn’t shining. We are just now starting to catch up on this issue, but it’s going to be a while before you can deploy that at scale…and there will be huge environmental costs as well as it will add a lot to the cost of using wind and solar since they need those things to be viable.
I think this gets into the issue of why so many are skeptical about funding, especially when you start talking about the numbers you are talking about here. To me, the solutions that have come out of using this approach (the fiat approach) so far have not been very good at actually addressing the critical issue in a way that is actually viable and will work. Not only haven’t these solutions been particularly good in developed countries but they have failed in developing countries too.
JMHO and all that. To me, if we were really serious about all of this 20 or even 10 years ago we’d have been building nuclear power plants like crazy and pouring R&D money into developing better plants. We didn’t do that. So now things are as they are, and we are behind the curve on this global disaster that is happening like a slow-motion (or not so slow these days) train wreck of biblical proportions. That we STILL aren’t really doing this at the scale needed is alarming, to me at least, but YMMV.
The area that I would like to see a lot more funding in is in improving earths ability to absorb carbon. This would be a massive undertaking that would goon forever. There is a lot of research being done on nitrogen fixing bacteria, trees and plants. A lot of scientists feel they could make significant impacts in these area but it is very labor intensive. It would also be a great opportunity to create jobs in impoverished countries and improve the quality of wild life habitats. Something on this scale would require up to 10,000,000 or even more people once it got rolling if the research could prove it’s effectiveness.
Well, that is not that simple, nor as simple as the contrarian narrative wants it, that is the narrative that claims that many in favor of change are not aware of that.
In the last election in Arizona, Mark Kelly became a new democratic senator, while supporting nuclear as key for the transition to renewals.
Just before that, in other state, there were cases were power companies closed their Nuclear power plant because they noticed that their natural gas ones were more economical.
As I noted then, there is change about how the ones in favor of change see nuclear, and when nuclear plants are closed now it is mostly due to economics that are dictated by not having tools like cap-and-trade in place. In the case of the private energy company with nuclear and gas plants, it was clear that since there was no trade or regulation, the company only looked at the bottom line to justify closing the nuclear plant. With the actual costs added due to carbon emissions it is clear that the nuclear power plant would had remained open.
It goes back to what was clear for many nowadays, leaders that do not see a problem need to be voted out of office.
I guess I am not following whatever point you are trying to make here (contrarian narrative? 
). You seem to be talking about why some power companies would choose to shut down nuclear power plants because they are too expensive to operate verse natural gas. I didn’t think I was arguing that point, since I don’t disagree…from a purely economic perspective, no doubt natural gas plants are cheaper to operate. I can’t see where I said or even implied otherwise or what this has to do with my own post or the part you quoted.
From simple economics which you discussed in your post, the fact is nuclear plants are being closed in favor of natural gas…and coal, if it’s an emergency or if it’s just convenient to do so…is pretty much a no-brainer. Of course, they are doing that…especially since in some cases, the governments WANT that as well.
As we haven’t invested in new designs, as the plants that were actually built and still in operation are all older and more expensive to operate, this is the reality. Eventually, there simply won’t be any more in the US…probably in the lifetime of some posting on this board in fact. During the same time, we have built out a lot of wind and solar and will almost certainly build a lot more…but they won’t fix the actual issue since they can’t do what either a nuclear power plant or natural gas or coal (or hydro) plant can do, at least not without some sort of energy storage system that currently only exists in very small amounts and will take a lot of time, effort and money to put in place.
And then in the final paragraph you show why I did post that reply. 
As Arizona showed, there is support for nuclear even with governments and politicians that you claim do not notice the problems while changing to energy sources that are less polluting. And there is investing in new nuclear energy projects.
When we actually build something then come back and tell me. 
I do actually know that a lot has been invested in the small modular systems and that some of them are on the cusp of being built or at least approved, so yes…I was being a bit hyperbolic there. But we (the US) haven’t actually built anything yet, nor has the DOE approved, at least as far as I’m aware (which, frankly, I haven’t looked at this in a while so it might have changed) any of the new designs.
I don’t see a date on that article, but it mentions something as going to happen in 2015, so presumably it’s 2014 or earlier.
It doesn’t address climate change at all, aside from one mention of carbon reduction; it seems to primarily be concerned about peak oil.
Well, I guess the issue of was that hyperbolic position.
I tell:
Highlighting our Progress
As of July 2021, unit 3 construction is approximately 98% complete, with the total Vogtle 3 & 4 expansion project approximately 92% complete.
Vogtle Unit 3 plant systems have successfully reached normal operating pressure and temperature during hot functional testing. Over the next several weeks, plant systems will continue to be tested at normal operating pressure and temperature.
Of course, more is needed, as well as giving the power companies more reasons on why to invest on those power plants, reasons like a tax on carbon emissions and as mentioned, cap-and-trade systems.
Well, then really soon, if I’m reading that correctly, you can say you told me so. Actually, I kid…thanks for the link. I didn’t realize we were that close to completion of a new plant. I knew there were several under construction, or proposed construction, but that has happened before with the projects cut even after construction had started. It’s good to hear that we are moving forward.
Appreciate the link! And I feel really good about you getting to say you told me so.
What’s their waste disposal plan, do you know? I poked around the linked site for a while and couldn’t find a word about it.
The cause of global warming is carbon emissions. The only way to lower carbon emissions is to use less fossil fuels. That requires a transition to renewable energy if the global economy has to be maintained, but according to the study mentioned, it will take several decades to do so.
About peak oil, the same transition to renewable energy will be needed to deal with a lack of oil, but the same lag time problem exists.
There are quite a few scientists out there who feel that the plant has much more potential as a carbon sink and it’s very possible for us to manipulate that without damaging the environment. This is where I would like to see more money being spent we can get results a lot quicker here both short term and long term