Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: CFW
“so much has been invested in clean energy that there can be no rolling back of moves to end carbon emissions”

And that is the "sunk cost fallacy" in a nutshell. What you spent in the past has NO BEARING on your future investment decisions. It's a big foible of humans to think "Gee, I've spent so much on this loser, if I only spend a lot more I will make sure it really ISN'T a loser."

But what do failed divinity students know about finance and economics? All he knows is how to line his pockets with the stink of his corruption.

5 posted on 04/16/2023 10:52:20 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom (I don’t like to think before I say something...I want to be just as surprised as everyone els)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ProtectOurFreedom

I remember joking from a previous crisis that “too big to fail” made more sense as a porno title.


15 posted on 04/16/2023 11:03:22 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Wishful thinking.


42 posted on 04/16/2023 12:22:31 PM PDT by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
so much has been invested in clean energy that there can be no rolling back of moves to end carbon emissions

And the way they are doing it, there is also no way back. Wind and solar sources, in and of themselves, are just too expensive and unreliable to carry even a small part of the demand. Or, are we expected to CURB our demands to get into line with the sputtering and ultimately uneconomic very bad experiment.

Fifteen years from now, those huge fields of solar collectors and windmill towers will be as obsolete as landline telephones. But they shall leave vast mounds of essentially unrecyclable waste in their wake, to somehow be dealt with by future generations. Eventually the need for both abundant and relatively inexpensive electrical power will reassert itself, and the more nearly correct solutions may finally be applied. Somebody, somewhere, will finally recognize that carbon-based fuels do NOT produce anything like "global warming", that there are ways to utilize coal as a clean-burning fuel (since it shall have been determined that carbon dioxide is not, and never was, a "pollutant"), and nuclear power will be accepted, because evolving technology no longer requires a large land base or extraordinary techniques to protect against massive escapes of radiation through accidents or acts of sabotage. Thus, the power generation facilities may be located in close proximity to the point of the power consumption. Every little town, and even major cities, no longer would need to have power lines extending for miles to serve power up through what may be a very vulnerable grid, but to be localized and quickly recovered in the event of unanticipated outages.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs

Do your own research.

45 posted on 04/16/2023 12:54:11 PM PDT by alloysteel (Fiction has to be at least plausible, while reality obeys no such constraint.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson