Axios: Trump Tells Confidants U.S. is Pulling Out of Paris Climate Change Agreement.....

The point is that they already have the funding they need. I understand that cutting off lesser options is a personal loss for you, but in the larger sense, it makes more sense to focus on what works.

 

And...Where are they?

 

The government cannot afford to subsidize anyone or any industry. What we need is private/ public/ and government partnerships. The government could provide seed money and sell energy bonds to investors to help finance companies that can show they can supply our energy needs. Of course it would need over- site so we don't go through the fiasco of some of Obamas deals.

 

Guy I quoted point out that some are getting private funding and Alaskan Airlines is using them.

 

Yes but they are not readily available to everyday consumers.

 

Most likely a production issue.

 

awe shucks, you want my tax dollars.

 

living off the government largesse is easier

 

Probably too costly right now.

 

Don't undersell the value of exporting renewable energy technology. The real market for cheap microgrid electricity is the third world. I know margins will be slim but we are talking massive market here. Countries like India that currently cannot put money into large electric infrastructure can and are rapidly developing microgrid technology. Think of Africa where village stores "sell power to mobile phone users

 

It's not my job as a tax-payer to provide your wife with a job.

What I'm hearing is, that the Free Market has no interest in bio-fuels.

 

It is not a matter of impatience, 'alternative' energies were sold with misleading promises that they could be replacements, and that was never the case. The government is the only entity that can create its own market, without the need to be profitable. In the case of biofuels and other non-traditional energies even the government could not find a viable long-term niche to push for continued funding. It isn't like biofuels are some new concept either. People were running cars on ethanol back in the 1920s.

IBM was in the computer business for decades before they became household products. Sadly computers are probably the worst comparative example, as there was no alternative to what computers were being made to do. In the case of biofuels and other non-traditional energy sources there are in fact dozens of alternatives, and almost everyone one of them vastly more efficient than bio-fuel.

You claim biofuels are already profitable, so why would additional tax dollars be necessary? Its not. We will not grow our energy supply in this country because the risk far outweighs the potential reward. You simply cannot plan to run an economy the size of the USA's on a fuel source that could be decimated by drought, flooding, or any other event that could disrupt the growth of the supply.

Biofuels likely have a place in the future, but it is not in the mass market supply chain that powers the nation. Biofuels should be content to find a niche in the economy, like some racing circuit or some other small market area where it could thrive. Our tax dollars should be used to find an actual replacement fuel to fossil fuels we use now, such as hydrogen or increase our nuclear capacity...

 

trump just join the like of Nicaragua and Syria to pull out of Paris Climate agreement, that it self say something about trump administration.

 

You don't know that this could never be the case because these technologies still aren't fully developed. If it is truly the case that nothing can truly replace oil our advanced civilization has an expiration date.

Yes, and that is why it works so well for researching technologies that are not yet profitable but may be profitable in a few decades.

Newness is irrelevant to me. What matters is having a diverse portfolio of sustainable sources and that advancements are being made in improving them.

However in the case of biofuels no alternative has actually dominated the market yet so the field is still wide open. In this case we should be exploring a lot of options to get the best result.

Profit is set by the price. If you set the price high enough anything is profitable. Currently the price of biofuels have come down to a reasonable range which means it is a viable alternative, the problem is that we have cheap oil but this won't last forever. If oil prices go into the $5 range biofuels will be profitable. Biofuels also face the problem that it does require changes to our infrastructure so even if it was the same price as oil there will be no profit motive to make the move. Another problem is we haven't yet scaled biofuel production up to where it should be.

Tax dollars for research have already helped improve biofuels significantly and with more research we can:
1: Use more sources like softwood, grasses and algae rather than just corn.
2: See the cost of production fall.
3: Be better table at scaling up the production.

It depends on the source. Softwood, grass, and algae won't be affected by floods.

If you know of a working alternative that you know will solve all our problems then I see no problem with cutting back biofuel funding. Electric and hrdrogen powered cars look promising but neither have really penetrated the market yet. Until then we have to prepare for a hybrid market where fuel comes from many sources.

 

We already know what can replace oil, hydrogen. The tech isn't there yet, and quite frankly wasting time and money on stop gap measures like biofuels only slows the process. There are other resources out there as well, in which technology opens up access to more and more each year. Not to mention that harvesting existing energy sources has continued to grow in efficiency as the years go on.

One of the many problems with biofuel is that it is not fully compatible with existing fuels and cannot simply be injected into the economy without significant upgrades and various changes across the board. The shelf life of biofuels is short, adding the necessary preservatives to enhance that shelf life adds to the cost. Quite simply biofuel is not a way forward, but regression from true progress away from fossil fuels all together. Actually greater diversity of biofuels is counter-productive, there should be a more singular focus. The necessary upgrades to both private vehicles and distribution points makes too many fuel sources more of a weakness than a strength. It become less and feasible to choose one source over another because the costs would continue to climb every time the sources changed in popularity or efficiency.

I have to go, I'll continue this later.