What is Digg?260 Comments
- tehbored, on 02/18/2008, -4/+64You call this ambitious? Make it 2035 and then we'll talk.
- crazybugger, on 02/18/2008, -10/+66I hope US does not invade the sun, to have more light.
- BigBallistix, on 02/18/2008, -15/+64In Obamas blueprint for change ( http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForCh ... ) he talks about this. He's promised $140b over 10 years, so that's more than appropriate. The pdf also mentions that the US's oil habits cost their economy $500b in 2006 alone. I'd try to build it a little quicker if I were you.
So for all those who say the government would never act on this article, think again. Just vote Obama! - cambob76, on 02/18/2008, -9/+47That's pretty optimistic to assume the U.S. will still exist in 2050.
- dotlizard, on 02/18/2008, -1/+37well this would be wonderful, even if i'll be 90 at the time. i'll still appreciate it :)
- AndreasTh, on 02/18/2008, -4/+33That would be impossible; the sun revolves around the earth too fast.
- wonderchemist, on 02/18/2008, -3/+32If they do, they better make sure they do it at night.
- Singulariter, on 02/18/2008, -1/+29425 Billion? That's all? Psssshaw...that's not even one war worth of funding
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -2/+28No one could be happier about this than me!!! I just wish it was sooner!
- tehbored, on 02/18/2008, -2/+26Don't worry, that'll be young in 2050.
- davdd, on 02/18/2008, -1/+19"$420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive..." This will seem like chump change in 10 years when we are paying $500 per baller of oil.
Hello - our trade deficit is already over 9 trillion dollars (that's 9000 Billions) I'd say the federal governments should be providing incentives to morrow to get this to happen by 2015 and not 2050.
Come on guys rally this one up! - LokitheComplex, on 02/18/2008, -2/+17In 2050 nuclear Fusion will just be just 30 years away from being vialble.
- Bologner, on 02/18/2008, -2/+15My children and grandchildren might have a better America after all.
- Livewire, on 02/18/2008, -1/+14you idiot, it sets in the ocean. they just need to have tubes to suck out the light at night.
- greenlight2001, on 02/18/2008, -6/+19"But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive."
Seeing how that's about how much we're spending in Iraq to date, it could have already happened. - saleem, on 02/18/2008, -0/+12Think of Return on Investment for your money and priceless savings for our troops' lives.
Compare this to the cost of the Iraq War. Which one gives us cheaper energy independence??? - biotch, on 02/18/2008, -6/+17it could of been 8 less if Bush wasnt elected.
- trump48257, on 02/18/2008, -0/+11Yea and we've spent $315 billion (probably more now) just on Iraq in the past FIVE YEARS. That doesn't seem like such a big number now does it?
- karenben, on 02/18/2008, -3/+13It would be great if this happens.
- mutagenesis, on 02/18/2008, -0/+10420 billion in subsidies... geez, we spend more in a year on the defense department, or at least around equal to that. 420 billion is 4 years in Iraq at the current expense.
I've seen worse uses of money, like, about everything the federal government funds. - l00s3r, on 02/18/2008, -1/+11Hey how about the government just gives everyone $20,000 or whatever it costs to convert a house to solar power. We'll be 100% solar this year!
- MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -4/+13The market doesn't deal well with externalities, like pollution. I thought we all went over this in ECON 101? Apparently libertarians forget about such simple concepts the moment they decide to base their entire personal philosophy on "the market is always right".
Sometimes, the free market ***** things up even worse than the government. It isn't god, you know. - JFallon126, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10I think one of the biggest changes needed is people need to stop pretending nuclear energy is bad. It's come a long way since the 1960's. Solar power combined with (safe) nuclear power would cut if not eliminate oil dependancy, be cleaner and more importantly, very doable.
- Evildudetx, on 02/18/2008, -2/+11Nice plan, but horribly unrealistic. We need options NOW, not in 40 years. Nuke plants make the most sense in the short term with a full move to solar in the long term. Our oil dependence could end very quickly if Shell would use their new technology and start getting the oil out of the oil shale deposits. Exploration and drilling in Alaska needs to be expanded and most importantly, the oil companies have to be allowed to build new refineries. I personally would also like to see all the BS special gas blends end as well. Then all gas everywhere would be the same and the refineries would not have to stop and make specific blends for California and everyone else.
- MattB123, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8Solar might be the good, off the grid option for portable power and/or remote locations.
- mutagenesis, on 02/18/2008, -2/+10Funny, scientists were predicting that for the current date around 40 years or so ago. You don't plan for predictions, you plan for what technology you have right now.
We cannot get a higher output from fusion than the input, so we shouldn't be planning our economy around "could be's". Even the scientists who predict that won't tell anyone that we should not put out plans for energy consumption for technology that has not been invented yet. Technology is too unpredictable for that. - nullcodes, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8What about all the pollution making the solar panels? Nuclear is the cleanest and safest. With Remix & Return technology, the total environmental impact can be greatly reduced. Remix and Return is when the used fuel is returned mixed with the ore that the radioactive fuel came from and reburied back in the mine it came from. There's actually less energy in it (obviously).
- elnerdo, on 02/18/2008, -1/+9I know it sounds greedy and dumb, but I don't really care what it is as long as it's made at home so we're not dependent on any (Saudi, UAE, etc) other nations. (We being the United States)
- dpcdomino, on 02/18/2008, -4/+11Sooner is right. With the speed technology is developing, you figure they would not need 50 years. Look at the development of cars, TVs, music delivery systems, internet, and other technologies and how they have devloped over 50 years.
Energy technology is seriously behind the eight ball and I think there are very dubious reasons why. - elnerdo, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9"A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country."
Edison tried this in the early 20th century. Alternating current (with transformers!) works better. That's why we don't have a direct-current power transmission backbone. - D3koy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6It's 42 years from now....42..hmm...
- D3koy, on 02/18/2008, -3/+9We could do this by 2025....Get your asses in gear engineers and politicians! We can convert South Dakota to "New Solar Cell"...Think how much cooler Mt Rushmore would be if it were shiny and powered Manhattan!
- Draxius, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6You are right, we need government to help us out in things like pollution. That is why we have our court system and we can sue people etc. Pollution would have been solved long ago if we could sue companies that are putting ***** in the air. Instead we have government regulation that does nothing more than legitimize pollution as long as it is below the standard that the companies lobbied against and most likely influenced. Worst case, they get slapped on the wrist with a fine. Now if they were paying out huge settlements and also losing customers, that would do something. All of a sudden expensive alternatives would make business sense.
- arw371, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7do you know how much oil and nuclear get in subsidies?
dont bring up that tired subsidy arguement - unpolloloco, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5what about all the pollution making the nuclear plants?
- cersad, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7Thank you, MacEnvy, for pointing out the obvious that people tend to doublethink away.
- MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5While that's broadly true, the real return on investment from WWII came from the technology investments we made during the war. A war shouldn't be *required* to make such investment, but unfortunately it's one of the few things that can convince our idiot politicians to actually spend money on the right things for once.
- ZekeSulastin, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5Fail troll fails epically.
Sad thing is, nuclear energy now is a great option. - offspring06, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Blame GWB and the war machine. War is big money for some.
- djbon2112, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6I agree. Plus the extra heat from fusion could be used to power a multitude of things, or even heat homes. Much better all around than solar!
- tcasey22, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6This is what is known as smart investment, and would be one of only the few gifts we would give to our grandchildren if we did indeed take this necessary step.
- nighthawk8713, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5South Dakota isn't all that sunny. It lends itself much more to wind farm than solar farms.
- Godlike, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Hope you have land mines, barbed wire, automatic weapons and the heart to kill because if everything goes to pot your place would become very popular.
- leontes, on 02/18/2008, -1/+5We really should be spending the money that has been allocated on the economic stimulus packages on a project like this.
That would result in true economic independence in reducing the need for foreign oil and coal plants for heating. Rather than supplying a tangential and fleeting 600 bucks to every person. Let's use the great wealth of united states to transform the countries economy, while pumping money into into the hands of the workers who would build the structure and into the coffers of the companies that would innovate for it. That is akin to the great works that America was able to build during the New Deal during FDR's time: the great turnpikes. Let's fix the economic downturns through revolutionary expenditure rather than the short shot in the arm that the economic stimulus provides. - MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4Screw the grandchildren, I hope to be alive to take advantage of it myself! But yeah, it's probably the best possible legacy we could leave behind for future generations.
- aritheman, on 02/18/2008, -1/+5This is a great Plan lets hope it will happen
- MeMongo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4America would be better off if people stopped having so many children.
- ajaytr, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Are you kidding me? Did anyone see Bush's proposal for next year's defense budget?? 515B in one year. 420B over 40 years is all we need? Pfffttt...
- nullcodes, on 02/18/2008, -1/+5LOL.
Proportions, dude.
The pollution is a lot less.
Also, where does the silicon for solar panels come from? (You need high quality without impurities etc.)
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7995454
That's right, the Saudis. They sell sand too apparently. - KingGorilla, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4The U.S. will exist. It'll just be the United States of China
-
Show 51 - 100 of 252 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is