4 ms·

Let's not pretend there isn't a big group of people who want to make fossil fuel illegal. And lets not pretend that whatever solution most people think of it i

Let's not pretend there isn't a big group of people who want to make fossil fuel illegal. And lets not pretend that whatever solution most people think of it isn't somehow going to be based on slowing down growth. P.S. They certainly will be having big problems dealing with the consequences if they aren't allowed to grow and become richer and won't have access to cheap reliable energy.

ip26 8y ago
What can I say, you aren't talking to those people. The build-out of renewable power and electrifying everything in a matter of two or three decades would be superhero-level industrialism worthy of the legacy of WWII America. Solar panels & windmills need people to install them, and that new battery-electric F-150 is going to need a lot of people to develop & build it. Sequestration, too, will be a massive industrial works if we get it going, and synthetic fuel could balance the flow of carbon in the transit sector overnight. That future would be built on a lot of American sweat & hard work. Plenty of growth, too. Frankly, I'd have thought that was something the country that rebuilt her fleets in like a year after Pearl Harbor & landed on the moon could get excited about.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Wind and solar are not going to come even close to solving our energy needs and they aren't as environmentally friendly as claimed.
  - ip26 8y ago
    They can certainly fill a lot moreof our need than they do today, and there is still nuclear as well. More or less environmentally friendly than climate change? I'm surprised for someone pro growth and all, you aren't interested in the opportunity to build all this out. Why not?
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am interested in solving the basic problems with energy which means finding a base source that fulfills the following 5 parameters: Cheap, plentiful, reliable, scalable and clean. Only Nuclear solves that today but there is a huge anti-nuclear sentiment by the environmental organizations and thus politically against nuclear which of course is absurd as that's probably the only energy form that actually can deliver on the no-emission promise which is the one everyone claims to be so worried about. I have nothing against wind and solar but they are just inferior to nuclear and hopefully in some distant future fusion and in a less distant future thorium but the current sentiment makes that even more filled with friction. To give you an example of the absurdity. This summer the weather was amazing in Denmark, the result no wind which in a country largely based on wind energy means they are relying on other countries to provide energy in this case Germany. Germany who also had a great summer and has been focusing on solar. What happened? Germany used coal. And now that they are closing their nuclear powerplants that will only increase and is a good example of the consequences of a ideologically driven rather than a rationally driven energy policy. Thanks but no thanks.

ip26 8y ago

What can I say, you aren't talking to those people. The build-out of renewable power and electrifying everything in a matter of two or three decades would be superhero-level industrialism worthy of the legacy of WWII America. Solar panels & windmills need people to install them, and that new battery-electric F-150 is going to need a lot of people to develop & build it. Sequestration, too, will be a massive industrial works if we get it going, and synthetic fuel could balance the flow of carbon in the transit sector overnight. That future would be built on a lot of American sweat & hard work. Plenty of growth, too. Frankly, I'd have thought that was something the country that rebuilt her fleets in like a year after Pearl Harbor & landed on the moon could get excited about.

ThomPete 8y ago
Wind and solar are not going to come even close to solving our energy needs and they aren't as environmentally friendly as claimed.
- ip26 8y ago
  They can certainly fill a lot moreof our need than they do today, and there is still nuclear as well. More or less environmentally friendly than climate change? I'm surprised for someone pro growth and all, you aren't interested in the opportunity to build all this out. Why not?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I am interested in solving the basic problems with energy which means finding a base source that fulfills the following 5 parameters: Cheap, plentiful, reliable, scalable and clean. Only Nuclear solves that today but there is a huge anti-nuclear sentiment by the environmental organizations and thus politically against nuclear which of course is absurd as that's probably the only energy form that actually can deliver on the no-emission promise which is the one everyone claims to be so worried about. I have nothing against wind and solar but they are just inferior to nuclear and hopefully in some distant future fusion and in a less distant future thorium but the current sentiment makes that even more filled with friction. To give you an example of the absurdity. This summer the weather was amazing in Denmark, the result no wind which in a country largely based on wind energy means they are relying on other countries to provide energy in this case Germany. Germany who also had a great summer and has been focusing on solar. What happened? Germany used coal. And now that they are closing their nuclear powerplants that will only increase and is a good example of the consequences of a ideologically driven rather than a rationally driven energy policy. Thanks but no thanks.