10-26-2014, 04:52 PM
[quote='kandrathe' pid='210776' dateline='1414273867']
I think it is a problem to depend on politics or in other words, government to force the change. People can and will oppose government coercion like that. Wouldn't it be the more prudent course for governments to "invest" their efforts in enabling the economics to be right. That is to say, promote beneficial research, to champion example projects, etc. Much of it is chicken and egg stuff, but you can imagine that without a NASA, there might not be a SpaceX. But also, that with NASA out of the space launch industry, it paves the way for the need for a SpaceX. It is the same with solar, or wind, or fusion. The government can do much to pave the way for the economics to catch ahold, but at some point they need to know when to fold up the socialist tent and get out of the way.
Another consideration is that as more, and more of the generation and consumption goes to renewable sources, the cheaper fossil fuels will get making leaving them an increasingly harder case to make. Imagine a Europe and USA fully using renewable energy, with the rest of the developing world inheriting our carbon footprint. The point being, that we need to ensure the path forward is economically accessible for everyone, not just the USA and Europeans.
[quote]
You are looking at things very much from en economical and a liberal perspective. If you don't put 'damage to the planet'in the cost calculation it is easy...we stay with fossil fuels. But that is not fair. Single people can never make a 'good' and 'smart' decission about such things at energy change, they just can't. There is a part that embraces renewable fuels, and understand what is going wrong with the planet, but truth be told, those are most of the time people with the money to do something else. SO yes you need a government to push here.
Also let's not forget all the hidden support for fossil and nuclear by the governments of the world. You don't want government push for renewable.....then you should stop supporting the old industries.
I think it is a problem to depend on politics or in other words, government to force the change. People can and will oppose government coercion like that. Wouldn't it be the more prudent course for governments to "invest" their efforts in enabling the economics to be right. That is to say, promote beneficial research, to champion example projects, etc. Much of it is chicken and egg stuff, but you can imagine that without a NASA, there might not be a SpaceX. But also, that with NASA out of the space launch industry, it paves the way for the need for a SpaceX. It is the same with solar, or wind, or fusion. The government can do much to pave the way for the economics to catch ahold, but at some point they need to know when to fold up the socialist tent and get out of the way.
Another consideration is that as more, and more of the generation and consumption goes to renewable sources, the cheaper fossil fuels will get making leaving them an increasingly harder case to make. Imagine a Europe and USA fully using renewable energy, with the rest of the developing world inheriting our carbon footprint. The point being, that we need to ensure the path forward is economically accessible for everyone, not just the USA and Europeans.
[quote]
You are looking at things very much from en economical and a liberal perspective. If you don't put 'damage to the planet'in the cost calculation it is easy...we stay with fossil fuels. But that is not fair. Single people can never make a 'good' and 'smart' decission about such things at energy change, they just can't. There is a part that embraces renewable fuels, and understand what is going wrong with the planet, but truth be told, those are most of the time people with the money to do something else. SO yes you need a government to push here.
Also let's not forget all the hidden support for fossil and nuclear by the governments of the world. You don't want government push for renewable.....then you should stop supporting the old industries.