On the other hand, there are numerous good reasons for developing alternatives; fossil fuel prices are volatile and becoming moreso as global competition increases for oil; oil is a major source of conflict, both direct and indirect, and we are spending a huge amount of money to maintain supply lines; there are serious environmental consequences aside from the potential threat of AGW, and another hidden cost in the price of oil is the distribution expense of getting foreign oil where it needs to be.
Infrastructure is definitely an issue, but we would have infrastructure issues in any event; for example, the electrical grid needs upgrading in the U.S. regardless...if we invest in any other source of energy, fossil fuel pipelines or refineries, or nuclear power, there are infrastructure costs to be considered that, like distribution of oil by shipping, are often hidden costs in existing sources of energy that are subsidized while we point at the development of alternatives as 'subsidized' and object to that while not always recognizing or objecting to the subsidies fossil fuel producers receive.
Then there are the alternative sources themselves; while we don't expect to have any one source produce all of our energy needs, each source has limitations and issues; Producing corn based ethanol, for example, is not nearly as efficient as ethanol from sugar cane and there are other objections; Research and development is improving the efficiency and further R&D is being poured into algae and agricultural byproducts, but it isn't there yet. Wind is more efficient and productive than many realize, but higher maintenance than, for example, solar; solar is one of the best alternatives, but like ethanol and other biofuels, further R&D is continuing. About the only source of alternative energy that far outstrips fossil fuels is geothermal, but then you have high installation costs that need to be amortized for individual property owners, just as you have right now with solar.
Nonetheless, each of the alternatives are really still in their infancy; the issues right now are primarily economic; in the U.S. we're sitting on (I heard at last count) 3 trillion dollars in military costs for the military incursions related to conflicts over oil for the last ten years, relatively high oil/pump gasoline costs, and now we're trying to develop alternatives, which is costly when we are already subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and rebuilding/expanding infrastructure.
I think the dead net is smart and it is by no means a colossal waste. As an individual, I would love to be able to buy an AWD electric SUV or truck that would have the same load capacity as my gas powered trucks and would run 300 miles without a recharge for the same money as what I can buy the trucks I need right now, but I can't; and I would dearly love to install solar that would power my home, store the excess electricity and charge my electric vehicles, and geothermal heat-for a competitive price with existing energy sources-but I can't. I believe the investment we are making in alternative energy will pay off in 25 years, but right now the costs of developing it combined with high and volatile energy costs along with the economic impact of never-ending military action and infrastructure are really putting a strain on economies around the world, but especially, it seems, in the U.S. We need to figure out a better way of managing the expense and proceed carefully, but some on the extreme end of AGW mitigation are not realistic about the real world costs of what they want to do and how quickly they want to do it vs. the short term risks that are hard to justify in the face of uncertainties. On the other extreme, some are fighting tooth and nail against the development of alternatives that have a lot of promise for the future, which is also short sighted and influenced by media and political sensationalism based on ideology every bit as much as some of the proponents are. It is a fine line that is easy to step over in either direction.
There are good reasons to develop alternative energy sources without the introduction of a made up global crisis. The global crisis part only ensures we will be wasteful in pursuit of a goal that is undefined and unachievable. The pursuit of any venture should be based on whether or not that endeavor will fulfill goal(s). If your developing alternative energy to provide people with cheaper energy; that is something that is easily measured and achievable. If your developing alternative energy to save the planet; that's something your not going to be able to measure. It makes it easy for a liberal to claim success when the goal is something that is immeasurable.
If we were able to wave a magic wand, remove all the excess CO2 that we've put into the environment and put everyone on a zero emission energy source. Do you think liberals would swell with pride at our achievements? How long would bad weather continue to be the result of our past use of fossil fuels? You have to understand the problem is liberals hate humans. If they weren't pursuing CO2 as the source of evil they'd be targeting something else that they feel we should be throwing money at with no measurable goal or expected outcome.
It's smart.
At the moment you spend lots of money you've never bothered to research on fossil fuels and nuclear. You subsidize those industries to the tune of billions of dollars every year. What? You think storing nuclear waste involves no money from your taxes? Or that the cost at the petrol pump has nothing to do with what happens in the Middle East?
Green technologies will never replace fossil fuels or nuclear. But those are not as cheap as you think. There are environmental costs, there are health costs, there are subsidies. Using other, domestically controlled sources of power makes sense. It frees up nations from the fluctuating demands of the international energy markets. It creates competition within domestic energy markets.
I'm surprised that people in the US and Canada, countries built on capitalist systems, suddenly give birth to a canary when people suggest we siphon a tiny fraction of the subsidies you pay to other industries into green technology, increase competition, develop new technologies and markets, and produce energy domestically with costs that can be predicted rather than costs determined by what happens around the globe. What a truly insidious idea!
Without any form of govt. tax breaks or refunds or whatever, solar will pay for itself in 11 years where I live AT CURRENT ELECTRIC PRICES. My power prices have been going up at least 10 percent a year for as long as I can remember, so it will most likely take 7 or less years to pay off the initial cost, then it's FREE power for me. Have fun paying more and more each year for your power.
Melting ice roads in the north that mean that communities cannot get the supplies they need trucked in is not exactly "not a problem", at least if you live there.
I don't doubt that billions are wasted on some alternative fuel schemes. Billions are routinely wasted on oil, too - thousands of dry wells bored to get a good one.
Even if AGW were wrong, which I am not conceding, if we develop green energy, future generations will be glad that we did when they run out of oil. If we just use oil until it runs out, if sea levels rise, or if we freeze because AGW is wrong; actually, everyone will lose in either scenario. The only winning, pro-human move is to leave some oil in the ground and to develop clean energy.
Big waste
Alarmists... ya gotta love em. ...No, actually I can't stand them
if a commercial mentions green anything, I won't buy it
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/claim-germany-spends-110-billion-delay-global-warming-37-hours_712223.html
Temperatures are below Hansen's scenario C (no increase in GHG emissions past the year 2000) and there's been no significant warming for the past 17 years. Do alarmists care if we are wasting billions on solar and wind turbines to combat something that's not even a problem? This is not going to hurt Big Oil or manufacturing in the least but the middle class taxpayer will get screwed again.
Alarmists... ya gotta love em.
