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
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
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
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
Yes. Australia has some of the largest provinces in China.
Meanwhile, economies run on money banks create out of thin air when they issue debt.
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.
Incidentally, it's always surprising to me how big Australia is.
So what? We spent $100 extra on military spending this year and didn't even have any debate about that.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, let's get control over these supposed externalities early.
Oh, so roughly two-years-in-Iraq money?
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?
Which'd be fine, if the past had a future. Which it does not.
Yes, we do.
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.
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.
Guess what? Obama didn't kill the coal industry, and Trump's not saving it.
Hasn't work...
Read Full