Until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15044574
Rugoz wrote:
Yours uses a slightly higher figure and an aerospace-specific inflation adjustment. Either way, it's $288bn and thus in the same ballpark, not $490bn, that was the entire NASA budget.


Nearly double isn't "slightly higher" or "in the same ballpark" :knife:

and you'd think that such a dire existential crisis would merit at least the entire budget of NASA from fifty years back. :lol:
#15044661
Sivad wrote:

and you'd think that such a dire existential crisis would merit at least the entire budget of NASA from fifty years back. :lol:



Excuse Junkie, I should have known.

So that's why you didn't respond to my last post in this thread.
#15044698
Bill Gates: U.S. energy research underfunded
At the 2012 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates lamented the state of funding for energy research and development in the U.S.


"I do worry that people underestimate the difficulty of getting the breakthroughs and underestimate how long it will take," Gates said. "In my view, energy research in the United States is underfunded -- I would say by a factor of two. It's crazy how little we're funding this energy stuff."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/bill-gate ... derfunded/



Why Don’t We Spend More on Energy Research?

Research into new energy technologies is dangerously underfunded, according to a new report from the American Energy Innovation Council. The group, which notably includes Bill Gates and GE’s CEO, expressed dismay at the seemingly low priority the U.S. government has placed on funding next-generation energy research in recent years, and described the issue as one that mattered both for the environment and America’s ability to compete internationally. The New York Times reports:

The leaders pointed out that the United States had fallen behind a slew of other countries in the percentage of economic output being spent on energy research, among them China, Japan, France and South Korea. Their report urged leaders of both political parties to start increasing funds to ultimately triple today’s level of research spending, about $5 billion a year. […] :knife: :lol:

At stake, Mr. Gates said in an interview, are not just long-term goals like reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, but also American leadership in industries of the future, including advanced nuclear reactors and coal-burning power plants that could capture and bury their emissions.

“Our universities, our national labs are the best in the world,” Mr. Gates said, but he added that a chronic funding shortfall was holding back the pace of their work.

The AEIC is identifying an issue of critical importance, and it naturally leads one to question why this isn’t a higher national priority. Unfortunately, the research and development of potentially game-changing technologies is less politically expedient for legislators than is the creation of a subsidy regime that can help prop up current-generation technologies (like wind and solar) that will create jobs and start producing power on a much shorter time scale.

But renewables in their current form aren’t good enough to compete with fossil fuels on their own merit, which makes their deployment costly, something that’s often borne out in higher electricity bills replete with “green” surcharges. These subsidies also carry with them an opportunity cost—much of the money spent incentivizing producers to install inefficient solar panels and wind turbines could be going to labs working on developing something better.

The green movement justifies its policy prescriptions by begging the public to think about the fate of future generations, yet hypocritically supports short-sighted solutions. The truly forward-looking solution would be to more fully fund the research into and development of what comes next.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2 ... -research/
#15044704
BeesKnee5 wrote:I've only one comment on this.

Out of date.


It's not out of date, we were well into the the retarded hysteria at that time. And if you look at the current spending which @Rugoz posted the US only spent like 7 billion this year with a total of less than 20 billion between 7 countries. It's still a great big retarded fucking farce.
#15044708
Sivad wrote:
It's not out of date, we were well into the the retarded hysteria at that time. And if you look at the current spending which @Rugoz posted the US only spent like 7 billion this year with a total of less than 20 billion between 7 countries. It's still a great big retarded fucking farce.
It's out of date, in 2015 renewables were more expensive than fossil fuels. The tipping point was last year and now coal cannot compete, the US can't shut down coal stations fast enough.
#15045209
If fusion offers such glorious bounty, it prompts the question – given, say, our concerns over climate change and the global political instability caused by the pursuit of oil – why the world isn't concentrating much harder on delivering it as fast as possible. Yes, €15bn is a lot of money to be spending building ITER. But, by comparison, the global cosmetics and perfume industry is worth some $170bn a year. And, in 2010, the US's military budget was $663bn. If the motivation was there, the global community could find the money to fund 10 rival fusion projects to fast-track the process of finding the optimum design. So, why haven't we seen a Manhattan Project-style push for fusion such as we did during the second world war when it was deemed by the allied forces that they must beat the Nazis in the race to build the first atomic bomb?

[...]

Cowley says a Manhattan Project for fusion would, of course, greatly speed up its delivery. "ITER will cost around €15bn, but that is not expensive when you consider the prize.

[...]

It's hard not to look at the potential of fusion and scream: "We need this right now!" But Cowley says we still face a 30-year wait for the magic day when we flick a switch and electricity generated from fusion flows from the socket. "After ITER, we will then have to build a demonstration plant. We hope to have that built by 2040. This is why there needs to be, in my mind, a 10-fold increase in fission power by 2050.

[...]

What Cowley is admitting, though, is that as long as fusion research remains underfunded (a term he doesn't utter, but the implication is there) then it will never save humanity from climate change, oil wars and the poverty and underdevelopment caused by ever-higher energy costs. As if to prove his point, he admits that on occasion he has even turned to eBay to buy spare parts for the smaller UK-owned tokamak at Colham which is known as Mast (Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-closer
#15045231
It's just another jam tomorrow story. Fusion has always been 30-40 years away with no guarantee of success. Spend a fortune on it now and it still won't be ready to roll out for many years to come.

The reason it's not higher up the list of priorities is that viable alternatives already exist and are being rolled out. Coal has had its day, new coal plants are being shelved, old plants closed. Nuclear is way too expensive and prohibitive to non first world countries Solar and Wind are now the cheapest source of energy globally. It's just happening to slowly.

https://globalenergymonitor.org/384-2/
#15045248
Fusion gets plenty of money, and I doubt that it's every going to be a power source. But it's good research, so the last thing I want to do is stop it. You never really now, it's impossible this week, next week maybe Mr Fusion. It's a long shot, but the research has taught us some things.

We need to develop, and deploy, a Smart Grid. That should be part of a plan to also expand use of alternatives. Next we promote big improvements in efficiency. That tech already exists, we just need a Carbon Tax to nudge people in the right direction.
#15045338
late wrote:Repeating childish absurdity is hardly a counterargument.


This is a global issue. It's not an American issue...

But, in reality, you want no part of any of it.


The nonsense Paris Accord that Obama signed? Yeah, no I don't. It was wildly unfair to the United States...
#15045379
Godstud wrote:It's just deflection. It's not our problem it's the world's, as if that absolves you from the responsibility of doing anything. :roll:


You'll die a very old man before you find where I've said we don't have some responsibility. But if the US stopped all emissions, and everyone else kept doing what they're doing, nothing will be saved...
#15045382
late wrote:Fusion gets plenty of money, and I doubt that it's every going to be a power source.


you don't know jackshit about fusion or energy research funding so who cares what your ignorant opinions on it are. People that do know what they're talking about say fusion is extremely promising and research funding for it is woefully lacking.
#15045383
Sivad wrote:
you don't know jackshit about fusion or energy research funding so who cares what your ignorant opinions on it are. People that do know what they're talking about say fusion is extremely promising and research funding for it is woefully lacking.



I know we've been working on it longer than you've been alive.

I know we're trying to create conditions similar to the Sun, but without the mind boggling amount of mass that holds everything in place.

Btw, people have been saying fusion is extremely promising, and could be close, if we give them more money of course, since the 1950s.

The reality is fusion is Big Science, and Big Science doesn't come cheap.
#15045386
BigSteve wrote:
And you need an actual argument...



All I need is the obvious.

We have a problem, and we need to work the problem.

Sure it's a global problem, we're a part of that globe, and if you measure total emissions since the 1800s, we are the biggest contributor. We've known this was a problem for decades, so it's time to grow up, and get to work.
#15045388
late wrote:All I need is the obvious.

We have a problem, and we need to work the problem.

Sure it's a global problem, we're a part of that globe, and if you measure total emissions since the 1800s, we are the biggest contributor. We've known this was a problem for decades, so it's time to grow up, and get to work.


Please cite a reference for your claims.

Are you saying that the rest of the world; all of those countries combined, emits a lower amount greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide than the United States does?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 20

Most of us non- white men have found a different […]

we ought to have maintained a bit more 'racial hy[…]

@Unthinking Majority Canada goes beyond just t[…]

It is also speculation to say these humanitarian w[…]