Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
You think you are making a point but you are doing the opposite. The reason people retired their coal furnaces and switched to natural gas was not because we ran out of coal. It was because natural gas made sense without the government putting its thumb on the scale. When "alternate" fuels make sense people adopt. It has nothing to do with what century we are in.
|
now for the real question...
"government putting its thumb on the scale" seems to have been a bad habit for USA Alternative power adoption and technology (to a point).
But... economically power options are still too cheap to warrant investment in alternatives (in USA)
No economic incentive. +/-
The positive thing about that...
1) Newer technologies will aid in replacement options
2) the science can respond fairly quickly
3) artificial economics is not sustainable (government subsidies and mandates)
The negative thing:
1) infrastructure cannot respond very quickly to swapping OUT conventional petrol stations.
2) Pain / inconvenience (and potentially national security) will suffer
3) Odd man OUT... there may come a time when you must PAY (the gov) to Play (to get fuel resources)
4) risk of social unrest. (unlikely in the passive USA, but if people get HUNGRY, or someone cuts off their TV... Watch OUT!)
This discussion is NOT very accepting of a 'discussion' ((mis) guided censoring)
So... it is very shallow / void of reasonable options or opinions.
Quite sad.
Could be a valuable subject with lots of GREAT feedback.