3 ms·

It seems like we need a bunch of crash projects working at once. Heck, the COVID pandemic showed we're still capable of such projects, given the will to do so.

It seems like we need a bunch of crash projects working at once. Heck, the COVID pandemic showed we're still capable of such projects, given the will to do so. I know, entrenched interest & their lobbying of politicians gets in the way. Well, pay them off! A few quick searches show that the top oil companies had a combined profit of roughly $200 Billion last year. Move off fossil fuels but give them the $200B to stay out of the way! In exchange, they take that to invest in retooling & retraining their workforce for the new methods. Heck, their drilling knowledge base alone makes them great candidates to take the lead on that aspect of geothermal. I think I'm only half serious about this. Payoffs (well, "subsidies" in political language) might be an awful idea. It's a realpolitik viewpoint, maybe not a good one. But maybe it could get us around the roadblocks.

pydry 5y ago
I'd argue more or less the same. Level the playing field amongst green energy (i.e. eliminate free nuclear insurance) hand offer the same level of subsidy to all of them. It would either mean no new nuclear plants or somebody comes up with a genuinely cheap, safe version that theyd be willing to put their money behind. That isnt what the propaganda is demanding though. It wants the perpetuation of free insurance for nuclear and to be given massive subsidies on top of that that solar, wind and pumped storage will never be granted. to produce less electricity for more money. It wants the market contorted out of all recognition to allow this and the only reason I can think of why is because the military needs it.