The book Zero to One by Peter Theil talks about this. Really interesting read.

He makes the argument that the United States used to be a definite optimist country- the US looks positively on the future because it’s people plan, build, and achieve, despite risk of failure.

But now, he continues, the US is an indefinite optimist country. It has kept its optimism. But there’s no concrete planning or investment by many members of the US. In order to get something accomplished in the US, you must fight industry red tape, government intervention, and public criticism. So what do people do? Nothing. They spend. They eat, drink, and party.

When the expected public reaction to ideas is to try and destroy them before they even get off the ground, you create an environment that discourages creativity and persistence, which consequently leads to a less productive society.

>I’d argue the biggest obstacle is will.

And who's will specifically? Why do we allow those who benefit massively from the status quo to stymie any change or progress?

​

>We certainly ended up with a nuclear weapons arsenal that is much bigger then the power generation industy with all the waste products to boot. ... The moon landing and interstate highway system come to mind.

All of those were in the interests of the powerful. Luckily most coincided with the interests of the people as well. Nuclear weapons both protected the country as well as allowed it to have massive leverage over others. The moon landing was invested in out of fear of loss to communism, not some noble good. But the science that came along was a nice bonus.

Coincidentally the interstate highway system just so happened to result in the final dismantling of the US passenger train network. So cars went from a luxury to mandatory for participation in the US economy. Great for oil interests.

​

>Sometime in the 1970s, the US lost the will to bet big.

After the whole generation was locked into car culture and the banks got stuffed with middle eastern oil money (foreign money in US banks did not have to fall under US financial regulations).

Suddenly the extremely wealthy interests had sidestepped the US controls that had helped the US dominate in world growth since the great depression. Then using this power to outsource jobs from the US to undermine the accumulated power of the American middle class and employees.

A decade later, enough power and wealth had been concentrated to go after the tax base of the country and dramatically centralize economic power. The power of the American voter shrunk proportionally. Its no mystery why popular reforms and investments are seemingly impossible, yet unpopular changes sail through nearly unopposed.

Its not some magic that caused the US to lose its ability for large investments in the 1970s. It was an intentional strategy to concentrating power in a way that no longer required projects to benefit multiple economic classes. Instead only serving the interests of the same small group of wealthy billionaires.

I’d argue that it’s not will, it’s money. Speaking as an absolute idiot in all things nuclear, and with zero expertise in energy subjects of any sort, I’ll bet the legacy fossil fuel industry was a part of the effort to vilify nuclear, went to great lengths to gin up fear after some near-catastrophes and led the call for hyper regulation and greater “safety procedures” to hamper construction. I have absolutely no proof, have no documentation and zero evidence to support my outlandish claims, but it wouldn’t be the first time one mega industry sullied the reputation of another that it perceived as a threat. Follow the money. Oil, coal and natural gas would lose billions of dollars if nuclear power took off and replaced just a fraction of the fossil fuel industry’s death grip on America. Will power? Come on, man. It’s not like people were sitting around a table and sighing in frustration because nuclear SEEMED hard…”Godh, this seems really really hard…,” it BECAME hard, it was MADE difficult, it was over regulated and it’s dangers were hyped to ensure that it was hysterically feared. But that wasn’t by accident - that was by design. When there’s THAT much money to lose, things don’t happen by accident. No facts, actual documentation nor other legitimate technical or industry references were used in the development of this pessimistic, anti-capitalist screed. Any similarity to any well-articulated thesis, hypothesis or argument, living or dead is purely coincidental.*

Why doesn't IKAROS count?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKAROS

>Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro-electric are not really feasible means of space travel

So what % of greenhouse gases are from space travel? Is that what you think we are trying to solve here? Just make everything solar for fun?

If you want to make chemical rockets "green" the propellant can be made from bio-fuels that don't add total CO2 to the atmosphere. But given that it is in the 1-2% range for the entire world, its pretty low on the priority list.

If you want to look at a 100 year timescale, green tech for the grid is inevitable. Its just so much cheaper to produce than fossil fuels. The next generation will look back in shock that we allowed our world politics to be dictated by such a messy and inefficient supply chain, all while obvious alternatives were available.

Hopefully it works. We don't need 1 solution, we need 50 and to pursue them all aggressively.

Its ok if some ideas don't pan out, the cost of not getting at least some to succeed is basically everything.

Actually batteries have come a very long way in just the past decade!

The really bad materials have been basically entirely phased out (cobalt/cadmium).

The main materials have all mature supply chains and batteries will use relatively little of them (compared to other uses, like construction). The main materials are iron/aluminum/manganese/carbon/silicon. All super easy.

Lithium was basically economically useless until recently. So its supply chain is very immature. But the material itself is extremely abundant and shortages are only in the near term.

Nickle is the final material that will be expensive and batteries will stress this supply chain. But they are only needed for the most dense applications (like high performance auto). But grid batteries and most commuter cars won't bother.

The economics of current gird batteries (compared to gas peaker plants) is amazing. The grid battery in southern Australia returned its investment costs in 6 months. That is an insane return for infrastructure.

The only reason its not the dominate form of grid management is because the whole supply chain and factories are taking some years to build. But that is just temporary. Its coming like a train.