patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

Solar is a renewable source of energy, and solar panels don't pollute when they are generating electricity.

Yes, we agree then. Excellent.

Point taken, that there is pollution in the making of solar cells, and in the disposing of them.

This is significant maybe, but can be dealt with far easier than burning coal or oil. Unfortunately these are relatively cheap, with huge lobbies behind them.

Renewable will eventually be cheaper than fossil fuels are now, but the thing preventing it from already being far further along is a flaw in capitalism as practiced now in the U.S.. Too much power is obtained by large corporations.

It wasn't meant to be this way.

Hey right wingers. Give an intelligent and real liberal a chance - read this.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14373-noam-chomsky-who-owns-the-world

marcus says

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14373-noam-chomsky-who-owns-the-world

Actually that link is interesting, but not the one I wanted. I'm looking for one I saw briefly the other day about the shift toward the owners and away from labor and the people.

The woman is obviously just plain stupid. Why would Fox bring on such stupid people baffles me.

I say we put generators on excercycles and put millions of them in our prison systems. Feed the energy back into the grid.
Kind of gives Con Edision a new meaning.

marcus says

Renewable

there is no such thing as renewable unless your talking about recycling beer cans.
and i mean all beer cans.. its an idiotic term cooked up by environmentalists..

frankly like I said, your better off using Nuclear Power with todays technology rendering
nuke waste and by products harmless and far less in quantity than so called solar power.

thomaswong.1986 says

frankly like I said, your better off using Nuclear Power with todays technology rendering

nuke waste and by products harmless and far less in quantity than so called solar power.

Anything is better than fossil fuels.

thomaswong.1986 says

there is no such thing as renewable unless your talking about recycling beer cans.

and i mean all beer cans.. its an idiotic term cooked up by environmentalists..

As you do so often, you are exposing more (or maybe I should say less) than just your bias.

If your actual source of power is infinite (and free) like sun rays or wind, and you aren't using it up (eg a resource like coal or oil),.... and you wanted to put a name on that, a name that emphasizes you aren't using anything up, and that more of what you are utilizing will always be there,...what name would you choose ?

I know, I know, you aren't "an environmentalist" so you have no use for such a word and you think it's really stupid that anyone would want to come up with such a word.

thomaswong.1986 says

Modern Nuclear power is far more cleaner than Solar.

Hell YEAH!

It also works 24/7 day or night no matter what the weather is like. Solar OTOH only works at peak efficiency on average only a few hours per day, and that's assuming the panels are kept clean.

Because of America's Exceptionalism, we will never have a Chernobyl.

ANyone can have an opinion on this. And if you want, your opinion can be based on the prevailing wisdom 15 years ago.

But the smartest opinion is, "I don't know, this is all changing and improving very fast."

If they ever come up with radically better ways to transport energy, and store it, then all bets are off. But solar innovations are happening all the time.

When I talk to kids, who will be my age in the 2050s, about what will be different, in technology or government, we all know that it's anybody's guess.

MY guess, and it is totally a guess, is that some of the biggest breakthroughs and changes between now and then may have to do with energy.

everything says

One day, people are going to look at the sun in an entirely different light, and say why didn't we think of that before.

Yes, people will finally see the sun as the massive, unshielded, radiation spewing, yet benign nuclear fireball it is and has always been.

marcus says

But solar innovations are happening all the time.

Not in Germany it seems:

Photovoltaics are threatening to become the costliest mistake in the history of German energy policy. Photovoltaic power plant operators and homeowners with solar panels on their rooftops are expected to pocket around €9 billion ($11.3 billion) this year, yet they contribute barely 4 percent of the country's power supply, and only erratically at that.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-solar-subsidies-to-remain-high-with-consumers-paying-the-price-a-842595.html

I agree there are innovations happening. Solar panels ARE indeed getting cheaper. A HUGE innovation was announced late last year in the ability to transmit solar power:

http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/65df338284e41b3dc1257aae0045b7de.aspx

Efficiency of the panels themselves is NOT improving much.

Still solar will NEVER solve the problems of night, weather, and bird poop.

Germans bought/installed solar panels in their own country due to government policy subsidies . . . i.e. another boondoggle.

Recently, they have come around to a much more feasible solar energy solution: German companies installing solar panels in Saudi Arabia, in exchange for oil shipped back to Germany. Heck, in Saudi Arabia, it might even make sense for those solar panels to generate heat and electricity to synthesize fuel.

Reality says

Germans buy/install solar panels due to government policy subsidies . . . i.e. another boondoggle. Recently, they have come around to a much more feasible solar energy solution: German companies installing solar panels in Saudi Arabia, in exchange for oil shipped back to Germany. Heck, in Saudi Arabia, it might even make sense for those solar panels to generate heat and electricity to synthesize fuel.

That its might, at least more so than cloudy, snowy Germany.

marcus says

If they ever come up with radically better ways to transport energy, and store it, then all bets are off.

That's called liquid fuel, as in gasoline, diesel, and their future sythetic versions. The recent spectacular Karma electric car burn-downs and 787 fire due to lithium batteries may well mark a turning point. Gasoline and diesel are incredibly energy-dense "batteries" because they do not have to carry 70+% of the reactant by weight (Oxygen from air) and do not have to carry the result of reaction back home (water vapor and CO2)

The CO2 (and water) can be "recycled" via fuel synthesis by nuclear energy and solar/wind/geotherm etc. sources. In fact that's probably how most hydrocarbon on this planet is produced to begin with. The ultimate energy source being the radioactive elements' decay inside the earth, and the earth-moon tidal interaction generating heat inside the earth's crust.

New Renter says

Still solar will NEVER solve the problems of night, weather, and bird poop

I don't even know whether solar panels on a roof can't solve those problems, but that's not nearly all solar is about.

If far better ways to store and transport electricity are developed, then you can have solar receptors in space and the deserts collecting all the electricity we need.

marcus says

you can have solar receptors in space and the deserts collecting all the electricity we need.

sounds like some really scary technology that the military will take advantage of first: orbitally based earthling zapper / death ray.

marcus says

New Renter says

Still solar will NEVER solve the problems of night, weather, and bird poop

I don't even know whether solar panels on a roof can't solve those problems, but that's not nearly all solar is about.

If far better ways to store and transport electricity are developed, then you can have solar receptors in space and the deserts collecting all the electricity we need.

Only if you have a magic roof that is always sunny, upon which shadows never fall and the birds never poop?

You'd have to factor in the >$15k/lb cost of placing an object in even a low earth orbit. For your scheme to work the object would have to be in a geosynchronous orbit above its receiving station. Moving a satellite to such an orbit would add quite a bit more cost. This scheme also does not inherently overcome the issue of clouds.

Converting the solar radiation to radar waves might help penetrate clouds but that would dramatically increase the cost and complexity of the satellite and yes, such a device could viably seen as a weapon.

It would be far simpler and cheaper to build nuclear reactors.

Reality says

marcus says

you can have solar receptors in space and the deserts collecting all the electricity we need.

sounds like some really scary technology that the military will take advantage of first: orbitally based earthling zapper / death ray.

Drones are cheaper, more reliable and far less complicated.

There's also soldiers with guns who are really, really good at what they do.

Solar is viable. I have seen over a dozen installs where people here in VA have working "net zero" or near net zero systems.

Ford even offers to coordinate a roof-top solar system for buyers of the all electric version of the Focus:

Reality says

Gasoline and diesel are incredibly energy-dense "batteries" because they do not have to carry 70+% of the reactant by weight (Oxygen from air) and do not have to carry the result of reaction back home (water vapor and CO2)

Yes, and they are relatively cheap.

But burning them pollutes our atmosphere and they are very limited in supply.

It's not a question of whether these will be replaced.

The question is, are we so short sighted that we insist on using them all up and polluting our world worse than we have to, just because there is so much profit potential there in the short run.

HeadSet says

Solar is viable. I have seen over a dozen installs where people here in VA have working "net zero" or near net zero systems.

Ford even offers to coordinate a roof-top solar system for buyers of the all electric version of the Focus:

Yes thanks to MASSIVE subsidies paid by everyone else. That's like saying the banks bad loans are viable because they can get a bailout.

marcus says

Reality says

Gasoline and diesel are incredibly energy-dense "batteries" because they do not have to carry 70+% of the reactant by weight (Oxygen from air) and do not have to carry the result of reaction back home (water vapor and CO2)

Yes, and they are relatively cheap.

But burning them pollutes our atmosphere and they are very limited in supply.

It's not a question of whether these will be replaced.

The question is, are we so short sighted that we insist on using them all up and polluting our world worse than we have to, just because there is so much profit potential there in the short run.

The point was that liquid fuels are excellent for the storage of energy, no matter what the ultimate source.

I would however argue that the combustion of said fuels negates much of these advantages as only 10-15% of the energy makes it to the pavement.

John Bailo says

God that's almost as stupid as Obama-Chu-Immelt cutting all funding for hydrogen fuel cells!

Good! That money is better spent developing methane fuel cells.

marcus says

Yes, and they are relatively cheap.

But burning them pollutes our atmosphere and they are very limited in supply.

It's not a question of whether these will be replaced.

The question is, are we so short sighted that we insist on using them all up and polluting our world worse than we have to, just because there is so much profit potential there in the short run.

What I wrote earlier must have gone over your head:

The CO2 (and water) can be "recycled" via fuel synthesis by nuclear energy and solar/wind/geotherm etc. sources. In fact that's probably how most hydrocarbon on this planet is produced to begin with: the ultimate energy source being the radioactive elements' decay inside the earth, and the earth-moon tidal interaction generating heat inside the earth's crust.

let me help ... Gates did not need any gov help to sell his product. When solar is a great idea is when Gates (or some other enterprizing fellow) designs, markets, and sells it at a profit. And, if the gov, and the left, follow their normal process, they will attack the producer of the profitable solar product and demand that their company be reduced and demand that a gov backed psudo-competitor be made up so people have a "choice" (yes, that is what was done for crApple). Anyways, when solar is a good idea it wont have to be gov supported or mandated. (insert Obamacare here too)

Bap33 says

Anyways, when solar is a good idea it wont have to be gov supported or mandated. (insert Obamacare here too)

Really ?

Consider this as a sort of analogy. Remember when Flat panel TVs were first being sold ? I think it cost about $4000 to buy a 42 inch (or so).

There were rich people that bought these in the early years. It took a good dozen years or so for them to scale up production and to lower costs to where a similar TV is what now ? $800 ? (dollars that are worth less than the ones for the $4000 price)

IF there had been no market whatsoever for the expensive ones, how would they have scaled it up to where they could make a profit selling them for $800 ?

Not that great an analogy, but consider energy related products.

WE have old technologies (burning oil and coal) which are still very profitable, but bad for the envirenment. We have 2 choices.

choice 1) Use up most of this fuel and only then develop competitively priced options. And maybe the consumer gets fucked over with what is charged for those then, with no competition in utility companies, which may dominate even our car fuels at that time.

choice 2) Have government serve a very basic function of subsidizing and backing development (via tax breaks etc), to help scale production up to where the technologies and the economies of scale make the pricing competitive with fossil fuels.

When it comes to energy, there is no consumer like the rich folks who were early adopters of flat panel TVs. That is unless you include government subsidized early adopters.

When you think about it, having the government invest in things that can make our lives and our future economies better, seems almost as good as investing in weapons and war.

marcus says

Consider this as a sort of analogy. Remember when Flat panel TVs were first being sold ? I think it cost about $4000 to buy a 42 inch (or so).

Try $40,000, circa 1998. Somehow the market brought the price down to today's $500 in a decade and half; amazing, isn't it? You know what happened to the prices of typical medical tech products in those same years under government subsidy?

marcus says

IF there had been no market whatsoever for the expensive ones, how would they have scaled it up to where they could make a profit selling them for $800 ?

If there had been no market, you wouldn't know the price. So long as the government is subsidizing the product at $40,000, the manufacturer would have no incentive to lower price to $800 either.

marcus says

choice 1) Use up most of this fuel and only then develop competitively priced options. And maybe the consumer gets fucked over with what is charged for those then, with no competition in utility companies, which may dominate even our car fuels at that time.

As the price rise up, the switch over gradually takes place . . . just like how Kerosene replaced Whale oil for lighting fuel a little more than 100 years ago.

marcus says

choice 2) Have government serve a very basic function of subsidizing and backing development (via tax breaks etc), to help scale production up to where the technologies and the economies of scale make the pricing competitive with fossil fuels.

This is complete nonsense because the government wouldn't know what to subsidize. In fact, if the government a little over 100 years ago were as interventionist as it is now, it would most likely have subsidized efforts to domestic whales for more whale oil production (as animal domestication was by far the best understood technology compared to chemical engineering, which didn't start until the petrochemical industry came along) or encouraging peanut farmers to produce more oil for lighting instead of subsidizing the far more dangerous product called kerosene (which often had a small trace of gasoline mixed in, causing fires). Gasoline itself would have been banned altogether if not the entire petro refining industry.

robertoaribas says

Bap33 says

Anyways, when solar is a good idea it wont have to be gov supported or mandated. (insert Obamacare here too)

when car transportation is a good idea, the government won't have to build roads, and hire cops to patrol them either.

when good drinking water that isn't poisonous is a good idea, governments won't have to supply it.

when education is a good idea, I won't have to be paying taxes for it, even though I don't have kids, just to educate your kids...

roberto, we agree 100%. The Gov should not have any function or regulation in any of these. RE public roads: Speed limits are friggin stupid, and all roads would work much better as toll roads owned by individuals. RE schools: Public schools are full of liberal biased and forced to teach some very disgusting views that a private school system would never have happen - ever. Re water: Having water used for drinking is the least common use for the water in any public water system. It's about 5% that is consumed, the rest is used for bath, shower, lawn, clothes, ect ect. But, public water systems are privatly owned all over the nation, and operate just dandy. The biggest issue faced by private (or public) water systems is the constant reduction in the amount of acceptible contaminates by the EPA. The "Safe" drinking water act of the 70's has been abused into the "clean" drinking water act by some rabid eco freaks in gov.

so, we agree, gov should not be in those areas. And energy included.

marcus says

When you think about it, having the government invest in things that can make our lives and our future economies better, seems almost as good as investing in weapons and war.

not having the biggest and baddest warriors and tools is a great way to not have to worry about a future economy or a better life. American Warriors secure our freedoms, safety, and any possible future. Right?

Reality says

This is complete nonsense because the government wouldn't know what to subsidize.

Reality says

In fact, if the government a little over 100 years ago were as interventionist as it is now, it would most likely have subsidized efforts to domestic whales for more whale oil production (as animal domestication was by far the most understood technology) or encouraging peanut farmers to produce more oil for lighting instead of subsidizing the far more dangerous product called kerosene (which often had a small trace of gasoline mixed in, causing fires). Gasoline itself would have been banned altogether if not the entire petro refining industry.

Is this your best you can do at showing how nonsensical my point was?

How do you explain all of the technology that comes from investment in military and Nasa, all government subsidized. Or the internet for that matter ?

marcus says

When you think about it, having the government invest in things that can make our lives and our future economies better, seems almost as good as investing in weapons and war.

Do you also think having the government tell you want to eat for dinner is a good idea? How about telling you what to wear tomorrow, so you will be warm and looking good?

The government doesn't know what is the best path to our future happiness. You and I decide as consumers what's good for ourselves. Sometimes can be as subtle as: iPad good, Newton (Apple's previous attempt at hand hand computer) bad. If it were the government, they'd be building Newtons for 3 decades like NASA's space shuttle.

All you have is stupid assertions.

Read:

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/american_innovation

One hundred and fifty years later, microchips, computing, and the Internet were created to guide rockets and communicate during nuclear war; today those technologies power our laptops and smartphones.

But outside of war, the United States has made decades-long investments in medicine, transportation, energy, and agriculture that resulted in blockbuster drugs, railroads and aviation, new energy technologies, and food surpluses.

America's brilliant inventors and firms played a critical role, but it is the partnerships between the state and private firms that delivered the world-changing technologies that we take for granted today.

Bap33 says

Right?

Okay. So when I said, "almost as good," it wasn't 100% sarcasm.

Government investment in energy related technologies would be an incredible no brainer, if it weren't for the HUGE money behind oil, gas and coal, and their impact on our somewhat corrupted govenment.

marcus says

How do you explain all of the technology that comes from investment in military and Nasa, all government subsidized. Or the internet for that matter ?

What about the internet? It's brought to you by competition among private enterprises. Do you have any idea how much a router would cost if the government were building it? People are often confused by the name "ARPANet" No, ARPA / DARPA is not a government research lab in the sense of doing real research. It's "hedge fund" using tax dollars to ensure that the US DoD has the first dib on newly emergying technologies. Throughout its life, it has only about 100 people at any given time, spread thin over numerous technology fields. The very smart people working there are not responsible for researching or developing themselves, their job is to spot what's coming soon and use DoD money to get early access/backdoor on the new technology.

NASA and military research are probably detrimental to overall technology development for humanity as it sidetracks smart brains to R&D weapons in a bureaucratic environment full of red tapes. However, during the Cold War, it was politically deemed necessary after the Sputnik event. ARPA/DARPA was also founded to prevent another Sputnik. None of it is about bringing new technology to society, but all about making sure the home team mafia doesn't fall behind some other mafia when it comes to weapons killing people. In other words, lesser of two evils: better our boys kill their boys than the other way around. It would take the following generation of apologists to paint all that as "good" instead of "temporarily necessary evil."

marcus says

All you have is stupid assertions.

Read:

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/american_innovation

One hundred and fifty years later, microchips, computing, and the Internet were created to guide rockets and communicate during nuclear war; today those technologies power our laptops and smartphones.

But outside of war, the United States has made decades-long investments in medicine, transportation, energy, and agriculture that resulted in blockbuster drugs, railroads and aviation, new energy technologies, and food surpluses.

America's brilliant inventors and firms played a critical role, but it is the partnerships between the state and private firms that delivered the world-changing technologies that we take for granted today.

You know what "partnership between the state and private firms" is also called? Fascism!

Numerous countries have tried Fascism and failed. Americans have been more innovative and more productive because historically we have less of that sort of nonsense (relative to the size of the economy) compared to other countries.

You can view the world through that prim if you wish.

I'm not going to dig up the evidence to show prove to you how much our government has invested in very indirect ways in universities Math and Science departments, all for reasons having to do with defense, weaponry, missile guidance and in general indirect speculative advances that might help defense.

If you think we would have had anything close to the technology advances of the last 60 years without government investment, and that it was mostly consumer driven, then you are an idiot.

(that's my blind assertion)

marcus says

Government investment in energy related technologies would be an incredible no brainer, if it weren't for the HUGE money behind oil, gas and coal, and their impact on our somewhat corrupted govenment.

Only if you don't have enough brain to realize that, given the huge influence of the oil/gas/coal industry, any government funded investment in energy technology is far more likely to be designed for failure than success replacing oil/gas/coal. We only have finite number of smart brains in each generation. The oil/gas/coal industry can hire away a portion of them. If the government hires away the rest to research AGW and other nonsense or detour energy research, then there's less competition to oil/gas/coal industry.