Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I am not seeing how at current tech levels and development levels we can eliminate all electrical plants (coal, gas/nuclear) and all Gas/diesel powered in favor of Solar, wind, hydro, tidal and or bio fuel.
No major country has trully manage to achive this yet, nor realky get that close. Countries like Germany have to keep back up sources available for all of there systems as they are (with the exception of hydro) more then a bit unpredictable.
And don't forget that we are talking about needing more electricity then we use currently as cars/trucks and trains move to electricity. So we need to produce more and also need a grud that can handle more. We also need to find a solution for the grid moving to a more consistent 24 hour load. as much of it is designed to run a peak capacity during the day then cool off during the low loads at night. but with charging cars and other batteries at night supplying trains that trend to run a fair bit at night, and heating homes. As uf we want to go renewable ae need to get rid of oil heat and natural gas heat as well, for that matter. and a LOT of houses still used Oil in the 70s.
And cost IS a factor. if you bankrupt the country trying to go renewable you have not really helped anything.
As for tossing money at it in the 70s. yes you can a bit and ut will advance things but you are not going to invent something in 1973-1990 that we have nit figured out by 2023. All the money in the world can only advance things so fast. And a lot of money has been spent over the past 50 years. could we have spent more? Sure. But that does not mean that we didnt spend anything. So you are not somehow inventing a 100% eficient Solar Cell nor a mythical “shipstone” that can hold electricity at a density of gasoline. For the most part we dont even have a theoretical wy yo do either. It is not like the manhattdn project were tossing mountains of money at it got the bomb fast. Nuclear bombs were theoreticaly possible and those with the education at the time new it. Hance why multiple countries all looked into it at the same time, Renewable sources of energy and a way yo store said energy is not yet at the point we have a theory to build to. What we need is a major new invention, Something akin to the Jet engine vs the ICE/prop. We can build better solar or better wind or better whatever but we can only improve them so much and so far.
Look at our electronics or your drills whatever. They are better then 20 years ago. but most of the increase in power/durration is down yo better motors or chips or whatever. Most battery improvements just make the lifespan of the battery longer.
And you cant “buy” a new concept/theory just by tossing money at it. You need to develop everything that goes with it so that your understanding of science all more or less evolves at the same time then you can take this knew understanding and see what toys you can build from it.
What the OP is asking for is like going back yo 1839 and saying if i dump a pile of money on a group of scientists they will in under 10 years be able to build an atom bomb with me onoy telling them that i want a Megaton yield explosive . They don't have the knowledge nor the theory to go on. If i did this and KEPT this unlimited funding going for 100 years I MAY get a nuclear bomb 10 years or so earlier. but i doubt you gain much more. You need to develop to many things and you need brilliant people such as Curie and Einstein to do the practical and theoretical work that the bomb is based on.
And right now 50 years later with drastically better motors, infinitely better electronics and all the other inprovements we have made in the half a century we cant even point to a theory on how to get past this. You could litterly brng the best minds and creative and practcal types in the world together hand them BILLIONS of dollars a month and in 10 years time still not be any better off as a result. Would we get better solar or better motors or whatever? sure but we dont need just better we need a whole new understanding. What the OP is asking for is to build a supersonic airplane without understanding how to build a rocket or Jet engine, no mater how good of a conventional prop you build you are not gerting yo mach 2. And in 1910 you are not inventing the jet and all the other improvements needed to get you a Sabre Jet.
I know we on tha forum love our what ifs but you could go back to the Roman times and you are still not building a 2-6-6-6 H8 steam engine. You have to have the technology and the theories they are based on. And in 1973 we dont. And in actuality we still don't today.
We can do some things but not everything.
Case in point i could (just) install solar panels on my roof that in June and July would pretty much power my house during the day. But at knight i am screwed, And the cost of a system to keep it going at night prohibitive . First i need about 1.5 x the panels as i need to produce enough for the off hours. Then i need a huge bank of batteries. and those batteries will need replacing in a few years so While my source of energy is renewable my batteries are consumed. So that brings the whole concept into question. or at least reduces its effectiveness. I have a 1984 car. it has had 1 new clutch and other then that it has only needed general maintenance, and gas, new shocks tires and windshield whiper type stuff. Wantvyo guess how many batteries you would. need to keep a car going for almost 40 years? Note i am not saying it is not possible nor am i sayng it it may not be better, but i am saying that electric cars are not the compkete solutin and that they have dwnsides, my buddy just sold his 5 year old electric car because of maintenance issues and he did NOT buy another. he has had three and has gone back to gas. So there are negatves.
So yes. think the idea that a change in 1973 results in a major difference by 2023 is ASB. In that we would need thse ASB yo explan to us how some new science works, as in 50 years s far we have not even came up with the idea for the science much less researched it. And blaming the failure on not enough money is a cop out. Researchers LOVE to play that game. They take money yo do research for years or decades then when they produce nothing and the money gets cut they blame the lack of funds and say f iu had only funded me for another 5 or 10 or 20 years we would have delivered. Just because the had delivered nothing until then is your fault. keep in mind that with a lot of these projects before the funds are cut the research team is often given a chance to explain why they are so close taht continued funding is justified. So in a oot f cases if they had something and just needed a bit more money and time then they may well have gotten it.
Now. suppose if wectossed billions a year at this then perhaps someone would have had that “ah hah!” eureka moment. but that is kind of like saying if i spend 100 dollars a week on Lotto then i am more likly to hit a million dollor jackpot and solve all my financial needs. Technicaly that is true, but the odds are drastically against it. And at this point as far as we currently know it may not even be possible to invent a drasticly better energy storage source or a drasticaly better truly renewable source of energy. we just don't know.
Now we probably would be better then we are today, Better batteries (a but) more effcien houses and buildings and what have you. Some major train lines electrified etc. but we would still have gas stations on every corner, and still use diesel trucks and zJet Fuel in aircraft, and oil powered ships and natural gas heated houses and most of our electric would still be generated in natural gass power plants or maybe coal.
In reqlity the best thing we could do for the counrty and the world in 73 is go all in on nuclear power. Spend those billions building a better safer nuclear power palnt and a safer way to dispose of the fuel afterwards. Cheep electric that does not add CO2 and other polutants to the air would be a bigger change then anything else we could do. And this does not require inventing anything hew just perfecting it. The nuclear powerplants we currently have are basicly hand built prototypes. a perfected system that we turn out in massive n,bers that is safe would be. a game changer. Heck it could drive the development of batteries and electric cars and tarins as the cost savings would be huge and obvious. We could prbably eliminate oil and natural gas heat, And the power conoanies could aford to improve the power grid. Add in more effcient buildings/homes and that would be a big help. But even that wont elminate the need for non renewable sources of energy.
And btw biofuel is a horrible source of energy based on how much land is used, fertilizer is required and fuel to farm it is used. In many respects it balances out closer to an energy storage then to a true fuel as you dont get put all that much more then it takes to produce.
And if we move more
No major country has trully manage to achive this yet, nor realky get that close. Countries like Germany have to keep back up sources available for all of there systems as they are (with the exception of hydro) more then a bit unpredictable.
And don't forget that we are talking about needing more electricity then we use currently as cars/trucks and trains move to electricity. So we need to produce more and also need a grud that can handle more. We also need to find a solution for the grid moving to a more consistent 24 hour load. as much of it is designed to run a peak capacity during the day then cool off during the low loads at night. but with charging cars and other batteries at night supplying trains that trend to run a fair bit at night, and heating homes. As uf we want to go renewable ae need to get rid of oil heat and natural gas heat as well, for that matter. and a LOT of houses still used Oil in the 70s.
And cost IS a factor. if you bankrupt the country trying to go renewable you have not really helped anything.
As for tossing money at it in the 70s. yes you can a bit and ut will advance things but you are not going to invent something in 1973-1990 that we have nit figured out by 2023. All the money in the world can only advance things so fast. And a lot of money has been spent over the past 50 years. could we have spent more? Sure. But that does not mean that we didnt spend anything. So you are not somehow inventing a 100% eficient Solar Cell nor a mythical “shipstone” that can hold electricity at a density of gasoline. For the most part we dont even have a theoretical wy yo do either. It is not like the manhattdn project were tossing mountains of money at it got the bomb fast. Nuclear bombs were theoreticaly possible and those with the education at the time new it. Hance why multiple countries all looked into it at the same time, Renewable sources of energy and a way yo store said energy is not yet at the point we have a theory to build to. What we need is a major new invention, Something akin to the Jet engine vs the ICE/prop. We can build better solar or better wind or better whatever but we can only improve them so much and so far.
Look at our electronics or your drills whatever. They are better then 20 years ago. but most of the increase in power/durration is down yo better motors or chips or whatever. Most battery improvements just make the lifespan of the battery longer.
And you cant “buy” a new concept/theory just by tossing money at it. You need to develop everything that goes with it so that your understanding of science all more or less evolves at the same time then you can take this knew understanding and see what toys you can build from it.
What the OP is asking for is like going back yo 1839 and saying if i dump a pile of money on a group of scientists they will in under 10 years be able to build an atom bomb with me onoy telling them that i want a Megaton yield explosive . They don't have the knowledge nor the theory to go on. If i did this and KEPT this unlimited funding going for 100 years I MAY get a nuclear bomb 10 years or so earlier. but i doubt you gain much more. You need to develop to many things and you need brilliant people such as Curie and Einstein to do the practical and theoretical work that the bomb is based on.
And right now 50 years later with drastically better motors, infinitely better electronics and all the other inprovements we have made in the half a century we cant even point to a theory on how to get past this. You could litterly brng the best minds and creative and practcal types in the world together hand them BILLIONS of dollars a month and in 10 years time still not be any better off as a result. Would we get better solar or better motors or whatever? sure but we dont need just better we need a whole new understanding. What the OP is asking for is to build a supersonic airplane without understanding how to build a rocket or Jet engine, no mater how good of a conventional prop you build you are not gerting yo mach 2. And in 1910 you are not inventing the jet and all the other improvements needed to get you a Sabre Jet.
I know we on tha forum love our what ifs but you could go back to the Roman times and you are still not building a 2-6-6-6 H8 steam engine. You have to have the technology and the theories they are based on. And in 1973 we dont. And in actuality we still don't today.
We can do some things but not everything.
Case in point i could (just) install solar panels on my roof that in June and July would pretty much power my house during the day. But at knight i am screwed, And the cost of a system to keep it going at night prohibitive . First i need about 1.5 x the panels as i need to produce enough for the off hours. Then i need a huge bank of batteries. and those batteries will need replacing in a few years so While my source of energy is renewable my batteries are consumed. So that brings the whole concept into question. or at least reduces its effectiveness. I have a 1984 car. it has had 1 new clutch and other then that it has only needed general maintenance, and gas, new shocks tires and windshield whiper type stuff. Wantvyo guess how many batteries you would. need to keep a car going for almost 40 years? Note i am not saying it is not possible nor am i sayng it it may not be better, but i am saying that electric cars are not the compkete solutin and that they have dwnsides, my buddy just sold his 5 year old electric car because of maintenance issues and he did NOT buy another. he has had three and has gone back to gas. So there are negatves.
So yes. think the idea that a change in 1973 results in a major difference by 2023 is ASB. In that we would need thse ASB yo explan to us how some new science works, as in 50 years s far we have not even came up with the idea for the science much less researched it. And blaming the failure on not enough money is a cop out. Researchers LOVE to play that game. They take money yo do research for years or decades then when they produce nothing and the money gets cut they blame the lack of funds and say f iu had only funded me for another 5 or 10 or 20 years we would have delivered. Just because the had delivered nothing until then is your fault. keep in mind that with a lot of these projects before the funds are cut the research team is often given a chance to explain why they are so close taht continued funding is justified. So in a oot f cases if they had something and just needed a bit more money and time then they may well have gotten it.
Now. suppose if wectossed billions a year at this then perhaps someone would have had that “ah hah!” eureka moment. but that is kind of like saying if i spend 100 dollars a week on Lotto then i am more likly to hit a million dollor jackpot and solve all my financial needs. Technicaly that is true, but the odds are drastically against it. And at this point as far as we currently know it may not even be possible to invent a drasticly better energy storage source or a drasticaly better truly renewable source of energy. we just don't know.
Now we probably would be better then we are today, Better batteries (a but) more effcien houses and buildings and what have you. Some major train lines electrified etc. but we would still have gas stations on every corner, and still use diesel trucks and zJet Fuel in aircraft, and oil powered ships and natural gas heated houses and most of our electric would still be generated in natural gass power plants or maybe coal.
In reqlity the best thing we could do for the counrty and the world in 73 is go all in on nuclear power. Spend those billions building a better safer nuclear power palnt and a safer way to dispose of the fuel afterwards. Cheep electric that does not add CO2 and other polutants to the air would be a bigger change then anything else we could do. And this does not require inventing anything hew just perfecting it. The nuclear powerplants we currently have are basicly hand built prototypes. a perfected system that we turn out in massive n,bers that is safe would be. a game changer. Heck it could drive the development of batteries and electric cars and tarins as the cost savings would be huge and obvious. We could prbably eliminate oil and natural gas heat, And the power conoanies could aford to improve the power grid. Add in more effcient buildings/homes and that would be a big help. But even that wont elminate the need for non renewable sources of energy.
And btw biofuel is a horrible source of energy based on how much land is used, fertilizer is required and fuel to farm it is used. In many respects it balances out closer to an energy storage then to a true fuel as you dont get put all that much more then it takes to produce.
And if we move more
