Why is a transition away from oil a problem?

Very little in America is one size fits all.

Beyond that, I'd suggest that western states have a ton of dirt roads, given the amount of federal land.

But, that doesn''t describe where the miles are driven.

 

The world's breeder reactors are pretty much all prototypes.

I'm guessing there are reasons for that.

 

You don't need many of them. Just enough to reprocess nuclear fuel, which they've done successfully for decades.

 

Yes, they also pay sales tax! What difference does it make? They are on uneployment anyways. The government would just paying tax to itself in those cases.

 

So we wait for the proverbial Cuyahoga river to catch fire before we act?
The purpose of government, in this case, is to act BEFORE the fire starts. Coal is dying, not politics, just economics. Oil will die. Again, just economics. But, while we wait for them to die naturally, their usage continues poisoning the planet until, at some point, the ecosphere will no longer support large mammal life. Governments around the world need to act in unison (why dumping the paris accords was stupid) and need to start acting now.

Science will win whatever we do but I'd just rather be on the "humanity survives" side of the equation.

 

As Republicans have clearly shown over the last 8 months, there's no such thing as "costs too much." How much is humanity's survival worth?

 

I don't think theres a lot of opposition (from us common folk) on moving away from fossil fuels. What's dangerous is moving away from it before we have an economical alternative. Replacing oil now (or soon) makes energy (and therefore everything) more expensive. We are in fact moving away from oil already, just more slowly than some would like. Just keep letting it happen.

 

The core of all opposition to the move to clean energy is a problem no one in the energy arena wants to face.

How do you monetize something like solar power?

Let's take Dado the homeowner. Using government subsidies (increased under Biden to cover 90% of cost) he installs a solar system and batteries and is essentially free of the utility PLUS the energy he's using creates no carbon gasses. Bigger threats?
Let's take Dadinatti a small town in Texazona that gets over 300 sun days per year. The City Council decides to set up its own utility. It establishes the corp, floats a bond, sets a tax to pay for the bond, gets the feds to kick in a 90% subsidy and all of a sudden you've got a very low cost competitor.
It's no wonder the oil, coal, and electric companies are so hell bent opposed to solar. But should the electrics be opposed? What if....

The electric companies take up the government on those subsidies but, because these are corporations the subsidies take the form of low interest loans that appear as a govt surcharge on the bills.
The electrics the offer customers huge discounts for putting the panels and batteries.
Customers see big decreases in their rates
Government loans are paid back
The grid is enhanced and stabilized because all those batteries in all those buildings provide backups for local and widespread failures. AND
We can slow the effects of climate change.

 

What are you talking about? We have a 400 year supply of coal, it's not dying because of economics.and that's just silly plants and animals grew huge with 5 times more CO2

 

Wrong the oil companies spent billions of dollars on green energy research and development

 

Why not just ask for fusion power?

 

Yes, some power companies have spent money on clean energy r&d.

Let's not get too carried away with that, as the enire US is WAY beind China, Germany and perhaps others in measures such as patents, manufacturing, expoert, installation, etc.

So, I think your "wrong" is not a very complete answer to that post you replied to.

 

That we will.

A good portion of every barrel of crude is used for manufacturing plastics and byproducts, many of which we still don't have a non-petroleum based substitute.

 

No they didn't.

 

Which, unfortunately, are the kinds that CAN blow up, like bombs.

Fusion can't. and produces no waste either

 

And which we are busily burning up

 

Are you honestly suggesting that 4x4 pickups on dirt roads could sub for 18 wheelers on Interstates?

 

Why would being in favor of conserving our planet be disqualifying for being called a, "conservative?"

 

It wouldn't. Did you think that I was saying that it would?

 

I heard of someone coming up for a natural replacement for at least some types of plastic. 60 Minutes did a story on him. He had some money, & he basically locked himself up to work on it for 10 yrs. But I haven't heard anything more about it, though the story was probably a couple of years ago.

 

Then why did you, "wonder if (you're) correct," about him being a conservative after he answered that he was in favor of clean energy & not poisoning the planet?

 

It was unrelated to their answer. I was wondering that before that answer. I was confident that they were a conservative, which is why I tagged them in my OP. By the way, how do you know that they are a "HE?"

 

Dadinatti in Texazona?

 

Are the dems talking about "replacing oil now (or soon?)"

Just keep letting what happen?

 

Do you mean the ME will become more chaotic IF the West becomes more green? If so, what is the correlation?