LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • AdelleChattre

    They claim they have enough money, but do they really

    Yes. Australia has some of the largest provinces in China.

    Governments run on huge deficits

    Meanwhile, economies run on money banks create out of thin air when they issue debt.

    they could go into more debt for it and are probably good for it, but is it cost-effective

    That depends on what costs we consider to be what economists call externalities, and what costs we don't bury because they're not our job. For instance, poisoning the atmosphere to the point of another great extinction in Earth's history, that's a real cost, not an externality in our energy economy.

    let's not forget that a country like the USA is large, not postage stamp sized like the often quoted Iceland

    Incidentally, it's always surprising to me how big Australia is.

    The truth is that it would cost billions for each state to implement

    So what? We spent $100 extra on military spending this year and didn't even have any debate about that.

    you would have to get large batteries to store it

    Or what any country with a national industrial policy and world class research and development know-how would do, develop new kinds of energy storage.

    my understanding is battery production is in no way Green

    There're more ways to store energy than electric batteries. As the U.S. Navy's shown, if you've got enough extra energy around you can do more than just desalinate, you can synthesize jet fuel. There are more things you can do with excess energy than are dreamt of in your wildest Aziz Ansari bit.

    batteries also don't last forever and need to be replaced

    Some folks store energy by using it to haul heavy trains or water uphill. There're a lot of options for energy research around storage.

    would there be an offset to the green revolution when they have to continue producing very unclean batteries?

    Agreed, let's get control over these supposed externalities early.

    The article talks about a cost of 3.3 Trillion

    Oh, so roughly two-years-in-Iraq money?

    As does money it would cost to update and install.

    I'm confused, it's like we don't have free market economics on our side? Why do we as Americans have so much trouble understanding that industrial policy isn't the exact same thing as a command economy?

    We are tied to the past

    Which'd be fine, if the past had a future. Which it does not.

    it's already installed, we don't need to spend trillions to replace it and update to new stuff

    Yes, we do.

    most states operate on a budget deficit as well and can't keep up with crumbling infrastructure, where are they going to find the ability to do this?

    Well, maybe if these states were united in some way, then there might be some way we could collaborate as a people toward needed ends... Nah.

    who is going to pay for the rollout of the new technology, it's not going to be the companies installing it

    A lot of people that would make this point would also be instinctively opposed to any kind of government subsidy, like the tax deal that makes companies like Solar City pay to put solar on people's roofs in exchange for the long-term tax credits. I don't know if you share that view, but subsidy is a policy tool, a means to an end.

    Jobs will be created but thousands will be lost when the coal workers are out of jobs

    Guess what? Obama didn't kill the coal industry, and Trump's not saving it.

    it's way more feasible and economical to stay the course

    Hasn't work...

    Read Full