Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science

[ednksu]

The main points are
1) it's the only long term solution for our nation.  That doesn't mean my lifetime or yours, I'm talking generations.  The faster we do it, and do it well, the faster we become a world leader in exporting that tech. 
2) It makes our nation more secure for a number of reasons.
a) not being dependent on the most volatile region in the world for control of a market monopoly.  Yes we have significant reserves in case crap goes down, but the average day in America is greatly effected by the petrol market. 
b) if we are able to export this tech to poor nations that might be a potential source of conflict it will stabilize them in long term ways (I'm thinking the ability to make clean water as an example since de-sal takes so much power).
c) while it may suck for the people who are affected by "energy poverty" now, the long term stability of renewables makes the US more domestically secure.
3) Building off 2C, this is a necessary spring board for our economy to develop. If done right it provides near generations massive job opportunities for the rebuilding of our infrastructure and creates lasting manufacturing jobs as green production components will be in long term demand and later demand for maintenance items. Unlike petrol that is trying to find new ways to reinvent itself (fracking), greener energy is a power source that is only going to get more efficient.  As it does, we'll constantly have to update in a strong linear process rather than the chaotic process of petrol development.  Risks like train derailments vaporizing a town, supply interruptions because of international issues, all but disappear. 
4) The environment is at a tipping point.   We've seen all the scientific data, none of which can be reasonable denied.  The more time passes the more it's accelerating, especially as we learn about how the naturally balanced system of carbon sinks are being affected (think methane sequestration in tundra as one example).  This news about ethane coming from fracking just shows that that technology is not a long term solution to our energy needs.  But more local to our generation, petrol based energy is rough ridin' filthy.  Even if you don't prescribe to man made global warming, we know that petrol energy is a huge risk to our immediate environment.  From Deep Water Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Lac-Mégantic disaster, or even the impact in the Tar Sands, the risk to our world in the immediate sense is stupendous.  If we go green now, we have an immediate positive impact on our environment outside of the global warming debate.

link to fracking/ethane point
http://www.futurity.org/bakken-formation-fracking-ethane-1149132-2/

[Rage Against the McKee]

So we should pay more now so people 150 years from now can export the tech?

[ednksu]

So we should pay more now so people 150 years from now can export the tech?

20 years....but yeah....with that kind of thinking Jefferson doesn't buy Louisiana from the Frenchies.

[EMAWican]

Exporting cheap gas to poor nations now has a more meaningful effect than some solar panels 20 years from now. We're stable as all get out because you know, we're exporting oil. Not saying we shouldn't do the solar panels in 20 years, but let's be realistic.

The renewable portfolio standards are a perfect example of what happens when green energy is forced onto a market. Electricity costs have gone up 9 out of the last 10 years. The standards are expected to continue to raise costs, even as natty gas and coal are at record lows. Makes sense, right? And it's only going to get worse.

[ednksu]

Exporting cheap gas to poor nations now has a more meaningful effect than some solar panels 20 years from now. We're stable as all get out because you know, we're exporting oil. Not saying we shouldn't do the solar panels in 20 years, but let's be realistic.

The renewable portfolio standards are a perfect example of what happens when green energy is forced onto a market. Electricity costs have gone up 9 out of the last 10 years. The standards are expected to continue to raise costs, even as natty gas and coal are at record lows. Makes sense, right? And it's only going to get worse.

You're talking about an inflationary to slightly above increase for most of that time.  And pinning energy costs and variatons from an international market on mandates about %s of green energy?  I don't see the logic in that. 

 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_3

And to my broader point we need to stop thinking about 5 to 10 years, and start thinking 20 years and beyond. We need to stop thinking that we can stabilize the middle east, that type of thinking is putting us in a 15 year commitment to Afghanistan and at least as long in Iraq.  Yes poorer nations would benefit now from cheap oil and gas.  The problem is that committing them to that energy locks them into a 2nd tier status as the 1st world moves towards green energy.  Keeping their economy dependent on petrol doesn't solve the long term structural issues in those countries and arguably exacerbates them over the long term. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Exporting the tech.   Lol, it will be stolen, copied and taken over by emerging nations.  Component production will be off shored if the US's current taxation climate holds.   In the interim energy poverty will grow, and the US cannot afford to subsidize both ends of green energy unless you're an idiot who thinks budget deficits and national debt is just numbers. 

Not to mention the crony capitalism that will flourish even more squeezing out competition as the government handpicks the winners and losers.

[ednksu]

Exporting the tech.   Lol, it will be stolen, copied and taken over by emerging nations.  Component production will be off shored if the US's current taxation climate holds.   In the interim energy poverty will grow, and the US cannot afford to subsidize both ends of green energy unless you're an idiot who thinks budget deficits and national debt is just numbers. 

Not to mention the crony capitalism that will flourish even more squeezing out competition as the government handpicks the winners and losers.

LOL at using the inoculated Solyndra talking point.   

[sonofdaxjones]

Yes, just Solyndra!  Not the industry as a whole, not technology and manufacturing trends, not the real world issues of corporate espionage, nor the current taxation climate, just Solyndra!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Edna sure is reading a lot into Saudi Arabia's attempt to come up with a new revenue stream.

Reminds me of when the federal government attempted to raise revenues off something more than import/export tariffs and everyone was like "see! this whole trade of goods thing is extremely short sighted. The proof is in the pudding".

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So we should pay more now so people 150 years from now can export the tech?

20 years....but yeah....with that kind of thinking Jefferson doesn't buy Louisiana from the Frenchies.

What was the cost in today's dollars, about $250 million? I think we spent that on Solyndra executives pay.

[ednksu]

The 3 amigos of logic back to back to back.