I do agree it is too late now, when govs act on an issue(except US gov in this case) it is usually too late.
It's always a matter of fine tuning. Net positive fusion energy is 'a matter of fine tuning'. Until you can bring something to market, and have a snowball's chance in hell of overcoming traditional fuel ICE, electric, hydrogen cell, fucking vegetable oil, and whatever else I've forgotten, you're so far behind you shouldn't even be talking about it.
I wasn't the one blabbering about kids getting to the doctor, that was glenn. And 'what you know' doesn't mean shit until it's on the market, sorry. I 'know' that net positive fusion would change the way the world operates, but that doesn't make it change shit until it arrives.
My argument was simply that bashing existing clean technology for the sake of some future not-yet-to-market technology is illogical. Exactly as this article points out, with regards to holding out for 100% electric everywhere. I don't necessarily think there will ever be a one-size-fits-all (at least within our lifetimes), but we do have a pretty damned good solution for the 80% already, and that can go a long way to helping maintain our environment.
But that's literally what you did, right here:
Taxation works. It needs to be done logically, to not overburden those who cannot afford it, but you blanket stated that we shouldn't be leveraging taxation to facilitate the abandonment of ICE for an alternative (likely electric). When I asked what your alternative was, you brought up the pie-in-the-sky (sorry, that's what it is right now) alternative fuel scenario. A (very gradual) sliding increase in fuel taxation, coupled with extended tax breaks for electrics, and potentially a buy-back program for non-hybrids 5 years or older would go an enormous way towards getting people on the electric bandwagon. Now whether that's a good idea or not is up for discussion, I personally think it's a wonderful idea but I acknowledge that not everyone thinks the same way I do. But fact remains, it works.
I am embarrassed to admit that I follow the LENR forum (cold fusion repackaged). I still find hot fusion no further along than a lot of the LENR contraptions. But it's the same chicken and egg thing. The LENR scammers pretend to have something just about ready for full production, and they've been continually ready for production for the last 10 years with nothing but a big lawsuit to show for their results so far.
And I agreed with you on your premise of diverting, I think the DoD is a huge drain on resources that would be better placed elsewhere.
Okay let's do a quick analysis and see what the market opportunity is here. Let's say for sake of argument that cost wasn't an issue (the federal government would subsidize the entire cost for the poors) and that we'd limit all families to one vehicle per household (after all, if the alternative is the earth dies everyone can make some sacrifices, right?) Since most families tend to select cars for their maximum use case (the most people/cargo they'll ever have in the vehicle at once, even if it's only once or twice a year) that means only some folks are even suitable for all-electric vehicles since the largest is 5 passengers (which equates to 4 passengers when considering room needed for kids' car seats). So most families are going to be buying something like the a gas-electric hybrid Chrysler Pacifica EV minivan (at over $40k each) to save some percentage of carbon emissions. Now that we've given away at taxpayer expense several million $30k Ioniqs/Focus Electrics or $40k PHEV minivans for poors, what percentage of those will be unable to realistically use their EV/minivan because they don't have a place to plug it in at home, the range isn't sufficient, or other similar considerations? Or to put it simply, if we could magically snap our fingers and have EVs fall from the sky, what's the maximum addressable market for them even if they were free? 50%, maybe? And how much carbon emissions have we saved in the end after all this effort considering that emissions from vehicles already only account for about a quarter of emissions? "Oh but glenn you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good....." will be the argument while your side is advocating for solutions that completely upend our society as currently constructed and yet won't solve the doomsday scenario you lay out.
It'd be simpler if most just said "I'd really like to own an i3 or Tesla and would prefer the government subsidize my purchase."
Nothin' embarrassing about following energy tech/research. It's a shame that there's a few fraudsters out there, but they're preying on those that want for better, same as most fraudsters. It's even sadder that ITER shifted from 'net positive fusion energy research' to 'we're testing other ways to make bombs' research, I suspect because wrapping rubber bands around jello is actually pretty hard.
I agree with taxation helping the solution. But I think if you actually did a full environmental analysis of early retirement of the existing fleet, you'd see that it was worse for the environment then letting them retire through attrition.
Possibly true, and something I hadn't thought about. I'd be curious how the numbers fleshed out.
All true too, and I wish there was a stronger push for this kind of stuff too. I'd love to see a mandate for solar on any new construction, for example.
