Quote:
Originally Posted by designshark
I didn't realize drought regardless of it's season was new. I remember something called The Dust Bowl . . .
Nucular power, now you're talking.
As far as subsidies are concerned, they're all a waste. The new green energy rush would be no where without them. The money dumped into wind and solar far out weigh the subsidies for anything I can think of. Green energy is not profitable. Until a break through like the invention of the transistor is made in the wind and solar energy field, It will only be a waste of money, mismanaged by fat pocket lining bureaucrats looking out for their campaign contributing buddies, not the planet. We all pay more for less and loose.
|
Drought may not be new, but some recent drought events' scale is new. Take the Amazon droughts of 2005 and 2010, and Australia's unprecedented decade long drought followed by torrential floods.
Also, the thing with green energy is that it USED to be not profitable. Some forms of it, especially solar, are set to become so cheap that they will outcompete everything else within a few years. Solar is already so cheap in Australia that coal plants are being decommissioned and replaced by solar plants. Then again, the specific form of nuclear that I was referring to has the potential to power everything with low levels of waste for thousands of years to come.
And yes, there are a lot of subsidies for fossil fuels. Conservative estimates are about $50 billion/year. Imagine how much cheaper green energy would be compared to fossil fuels (especially coal and oil) if we eliminated all of those. I sincerely think that with the price of solar and wind still dropping, the free market will do its job in maybe a decade or two and fossil fuels simply won't be able to compete.
