5 ms·

The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. It's that simple. The only thing needed is really battery technology which research had been promising.

The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. It's that simple. The only thing needed is really battery technology which research had been promising. We put a man on the moon in less than a decade doing all calculations by hand and doing all physical testing. All that's needed is funding and the drive.

godelski 7y ago
> The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. If you're suggesting with putting that money into research and solving the problems then yes, I 100% agree (not sure how this wasn't conveyed in my post. In fact every time I post something like this I'm surprised people still respond this way. What am I doing wrong?). If you're saying with existing technology well... maybe. But I'm assuming the former because of the moon analogy (where we had to invent a lot of stuff).
- specialist 7y ago
  After 40 years of concern trolling (aka FUD), I'm fresh out of goodwill. Any one still not 100% onboard is the rump of the loyal opposition, or serves it, by default or design. PS- Thread is arguing PV & batteries, problems which wind and direct current will solve. Just assume smart people have already figured this stuff out and you're not in the loop. Remaining obstacles are wholly political.
  - ianai 7y ago
    There’s a link between market growth and oil prices and production. Ie higher prices mean lower growth and vice versa. Meanwhile, renewables can conceivably grow at whatever rate we decide to fund. Sure, there’s only so much sun or wind power available, for instance, but not so much for nuclear. The upper limits are also pretty high. Moving to renewables should open up greater growth than staying on fossil fuels in the longer term.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  What I was saying was that there's a lot of research and prototypes already available for battery tech and they just need funding to put into production. The batteries are the last mile to clean energy for evening out the supply. Is a problem that's 90% solved and will make clean energy wholly viable. The issue isn't the tech, it's the commitment to admitting we're in a bad spot as a civilization and actually doing something about it rather than half hearted handwavy attempts to keep dirty energy in business as long as possible.
  - godelski 7y ago
    Again, how am I conveying that I'm only pointing out problems? I literally ended my OP with a scenario of how I'd go about it with a diversified energy and research portfolio. At this point I feel like others are putting words in my mouth and ignoring 90% of my statements. It is very hard to have discussions where people are arguing with points I agree (or mostly agree) with. As to the mostly agree part, yes, 90% there. But that last 10% is hard. And the other part is that we don't just need to be carbon neutral, we need to be carbon negative. It also needs to become cheap enough that other countries can implement these technologies. On these two points I wouldn't say we're 90% there, but maybe 60%.

godelski 7y ago

> The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. If you're suggesting with putting that money into research and solving the problems then yes, I 100% agree (not sure how this wasn't conveyed in my post. In fact every time I post something like this I'm surprised people still respond this way. What am I doing wrong?). If you're saying with existing technology well... maybe. But I'm assuming the former because of the moon analogy (where we had to invent a lot of stuff).

specialist 7y ago
After 40 years of concern trolling (aka FUD), I'm fresh out of goodwill. Any one still not 100% onboard is the rump of the loyal opposition, or serves it, by default or design. PS- Thread is arguing PV & batteries, problems which wind and direct current will solve. Just assume smart people have already figured this stuff out and you're not in the loop. Remaining obstacles are wholly political.
- ianai 7y ago
  There’s a link between market growth and oil prices and production. Ie higher prices mean lower growth and vice versa. Meanwhile, renewables can conceivably grow at whatever rate we decide to fund. Sure, there’s only so much sun or wind power available, for instance, but not so much for nuclear. The upper limits are also pretty high. Moving to renewables should open up greater growth than staying on fossil fuels in the longer term.
hanniabu 7y ago
What I was saying was that there's a lot of research and prototypes already available for battery tech and they just need funding to put into production. The batteries are the last mile to clean energy for evening out the supply. Is a problem that's 90% solved and will make clean energy wholly viable. The issue isn't the tech, it's the commitment to admitting we're in a bad spot as a civilization and actually doing something about it rather than half hearted handwavy attempts to keep dirty energy in business as long as possible.
- godelski 7y ago
  Again, how am I conveying that I'm only pointing out problems? I literally ended my OP with a scenario of how I'd go about it with a diversified energy and research portfolio. At this point I feel like others are putting words in my mouth and ignoring 90% of my statements. It is very hard to have discussions where people are arguing with points I agree (or mostly agree) with. As to the mostly agree part, yes, 90% there. But that last 10% is hard. And the other part is that we don't just need to be carbon neutral, we need to be carbon negative. It also needs to become cheap enough that other countries can implement these technologies. On these two points I wouldn't say we're 90% there, but maybe 60%.