# Green Technology: What WILL Happen



## IndependntLogic (May 26, 2012)

MY PREDICTIONS: GREEN TECHNOLOGY: Technology always comes in three phases: At first it is VERY expensive and NOT very efficient. Then, after it has been around a while, it becomes more efficient and affordable by the upper-middle-class or wealthier. Finally, it becomes extremely efficient and affordable by virtually everyone. What do cars, TVs, computers, cell phone all have in common? They were all considered fads or schemes by those who had a financial interest in seeing them fail, and the older people who were more comfortable with the old way of doing things before they were around. This is the case with Green Technology  especially when it comes to cars. All the technology for it is already around. However, there has never before been a product or technology that would so adversely affect so many powerful industries. This is reflected in the negative spin and attacks on green technology by FOX News, which is owned in large part, by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Additionally, American and British Oil interests have bought the patents on green technology for decades, simply to make sure they werent developed. If the technology were something that could be hoarded by ownership of resources, they would have allowed the commercialization of clean tech long ago. But how do you hoard the sun? So once the Green Products are released on a commercially viable scale, they will simply be reverse-engineered and reproduced, driving the cost down even further. The country that develops this technology first, will enjoy the single greatest boost to any economy in the world but only for five to ten years at most. However, the leaders in this technology will enjoy financial wealth at a rate proportionate to the decline of wealth in the Middle East. The Japanese are likely to be the first mass-marketers of a variety of these products. They have no major oil companies and their auto manufacturers are already preparing for what is to come, while American and British media are doing their best to convince their audiences that, although we can fly a man to the moon, we cant figure out a way to build a car that runs on something other than gas. Heating homes and other energy needs will also be addressed by non-fossil fuels within a generation. Remember the first time you saw a solar calculator? This technology will continue to improve until a panel the size of a coffee table, will be sufficient to heat the home it is mounted on. This will apply to virtually every area of clean technology and by 2050, the use of fossil fuel cars etc will no longer be a necessity at all but rather an option for those who still love their old gas-powered cars, even though the new ones will blow their doors off and handle better.


----------



## whitehall (May 26, 2012)

As long as green technology is consumer driven it will evolve at a logical pace consistent with development and affordability. If the left wing politicians get involved and taxpayer funds are authorized based on political agenda or political payoffs all bets are off.


----------



## Douger (May 26, 2012)

It works quite well in my neighborhood.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 26, 2012)

whitehall said:


> As long as green technology is consumer driven it will evolve at a logical pace consistent with development and affordability. If the left wing politicians get involved and taxpayer funds are authorized based on political agenda or political payoffs all bets are off.



That's reasonable. So are you against oil subsidies and tax breaks? I'm not assuming, I'm jsut curious.


----------



## RGR (May 26, 2012)

Douger said:


> It works quite well in my neighborhood.



Same here. Makes me wonder what all the fuss is about sometimes.


----------



## percysunshine (May 26, 2012)

'Shit Happens' is one of the laws of thermodynamics.

And there is no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 26, 2012)

Let me guess, you think the sun will rise in the morning too.

that is not a prediction, it is a description of observed trends.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 26, 2012)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5340746-post1.html


----------



## percysunshine (May 26, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Let me guess, you think the sun will rise in the morning too.
> 
> that is not a prediction, it is a description of observed trends.



Why are you afraid of predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Seems like a safe bet.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 26, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> 'Shit Happens' is one of the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> And there is no such thing as a free lunch.



*Well that's um, very uh, nice. And uh, A house divided against itself will fall! *



bigrebnc1775 said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5340746-post1.html



*Do you understand this thread is about technology?*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 26, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess, you think the sun will rise in the morning too.
> ...



With Mother nature all bets are off.


----------



## whitehall (May 26, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > As long as green technology is consumer driven it will evolve at a logical pace consistent with development and affordability. If the left wing politicians get involved and taxpayer funds are authorized based on political agenda or political payoffs all bets are off.
> ...



The freaking world runs on oil. Commodity prices depend on oil. We need oil to heat our homes in the winter. Why wouldn't I support subsidies that keep the energy flowing?


----------



## percysunshine (May 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Well, shit happens, but for the past 5 billion years, that shit has never happened.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 26, 2012)

whitehall said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



So you're all for taxpayer money being given to profitable, private companies. Ah. A statist! 

So this post had nothing to do with politics at all. It's simply about energy. But based on your response, it's obvious you feel the MSNBC and CNN are the "Liberal Media" and FOX is the only fair station, and that you do not vote Dem.
It's interesting to observe how many people have so thoroughly indoctrinated into believing that a technology that could only help the environment and also bankrupt the Middle East (or at least strike a severe blow), must be a bad thing because of the political spin and positioning that has been masterfully attached to it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 26, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



Yep shit happens but you may never wake up to know if the sun rises or not.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 26, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> MY PREDICTIONS: GREEN TECHNOLOGY: Technology always comes in three phases: At first it is VERY expensive and NOT very efficient. Then, after it has been around a while, it becomes more efficient and affordable by the upper-middle-class or wealthier. Finally, it becomes extremely efficient and affordable by virtually everyone. What do cars, TV&#8217;s, computers, cell phone all have in common? They were all considered fads or &#8220;schemes&#8221; by those who had a financial interest in seeing them fail, and the older people who were more comfortable with the &#8220;old way&#8221; of doing things before they were around. This is the case with &#8220;Green Technology&#8221; &#8211; especially when it comes to cars. All the technology for it is already around. However, there has never before been a product or technology that would so adversely affect so many powerful industries. This is reflected in the negative spin and attacks on green technology by FOX News, which is owned in large part, by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Additionally, American and British Oil interests have bought the patents on green technology for decades, simply to make sure they weren&#8217;t developed. If the technology were something that could be hoarded by ownership of resources, they would have allowed the commercialization of clean tech long ago. But how do you hoard the sun? So once the Green Products are released on a commercially viable scale, they will simply be reverse-engineered and reproduced, driving the cost down even further. The country that develops this technology first, will enjoy the single greatest boost to any economy in the world but only for five to ten years at most. However, the leaders in this technology will enjoy financial wealth at a rate proportionate to the decline of wealth in the Middle East. The Japanese are likely to be the first mass-marketers of a variety of these products. They have no major oil companies and their auto manufacturers are already preparing for what is to come, while American and British media are doing their best to convince their audiences that, although we can fly a man to the moon, we can&#8217;t figure out a way to build a car that runs on something other than gas. Heating homes and other energy needs will also be addressed by non-fossil fuels within a generation. Remember the first time you saw a solar calculator? This technology will continue to improve until a panel the size of a coffee table, will be sufficient to heat the home it is mounted on. This will apply to virtually every area of clean technology and by 2050, the use of fossil fuel cars etc&#8230; will no longer be a necessity at all but rather an option for those who still love their old gas-powered cars, even though the new ones will blow their doors off and handle better.



Certainly -- you're joking about the part where we have to wait for price to come down some more. The Solar panel industry is over 30 years old. CARTER put PV panels on the White House. Being an electronics designer, I can tell you -- the tech is mature and there is NOT a huge breakthru to be had. Actually, the DOE told us DECADES ago that we could make better solar panels if we used GA-AS instead of silicon, but it's kind of a hard sell to mine TONS of arsenic for such a green product.. 

The promise of fuel cells is virtually destroyed by the hype of hydrogen in -- water vapor out as MOST commercial fuel cells now run on nat gas (a fossil fuel). Same for all the other charades of GREEN energy. The Sierra (which played a role in foisting giant dams on the public for hydro) now wants desparately to tear the dams down. That's a great idea actually if your rebuilt enough nuclear capacity. 

Wind and solar are so intermittent and opportunistic that they are a NIGHTMARE to add to the grid system. They will never account for more than 20% of any major grid. I'll give you the 20%, but today you are paying not only for the wind turbine, but for the nat gas peaker generator to back it up when the winds don't blow... 

Take your crystal ball and spend your OWN MONEY to place the bets. I've placed mine myself....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 26, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess, you think the sun will rise in the morning too.
> ...



That was my point, calling the BS in the OP a prediction is like betting on the sunrise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 26, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



Don't tell that to the dinosaurs.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 27, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNkt-ZRyiZM]Chiffon Margerine - It&#39;s Not Nice to Fool Mother Nature - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Middleoftheroad (May 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > MY PREDICTIONS: GREEN TECHNOLOGY: Technology always comes in three phases: At first it is VERY expensive and NOT very efficient. Then, after it has been around a while, it becomes more efficient and affordable by the upper-middle-class or wealthier. Finally, it becomes extremely efficient and affordable by virtually everyone. What do cars, TV&#8217;s, computers, cell phone all have in common? They were all considered fads or &#8220;schemes&#8221; by those who had a financial interest in seeing them fail, and the older people who were more comfortable with the &#8220;old way&#8221; of doing things before they were around. This is the case with &#8220;Green Technology&#8221; &#8211; especially when it comes to cars. All the technology for it is already around. However, there has never before been a product or technology that would so adversely affect so many powerful industries. This is reflected in the negative spin and attacks on green technology by FOX News, which is owned in large part, by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Additionally, American and British Oil interests have bought the patents on green technology for decades, simply to make sure they weren&#8217;t developed. If the technology were something that could be hoarded by ownership of resources, they would have allowed the commercialization of clean tech long ago. But how do you hoard the sun? So once the Green Products are released on a commercially viable scale, they will simply be reverse-engineered and reproduced, driving the cost down even further. The country that develops this technology first, will enjoy the single greatest boost to any economy in the world but only for five to ten years at most. However, the leaders in this technology will enjoy financial wealth at a rate proportionate to the decline of wealth in the Middle East. The Japanese are likely to be the first mass-marketers of a variety of these products. They have no major oil companies and their auto manufacturers are already preparing for what is to come, while American and British media are doing their best to convince their audiences that, although we can fly a man to the moon, we can&#8217;t figure out a way to build a car that runs on something other than gas. Heating homes and other energy needs will also be addressed by non-fossil fuels within a generation. Remember the first time you saw a solar calculator? This technology will continue to improve until a panel the size of a coffee table, will be sufficient to heat the home it is mounted on. This will apply to virtually every area of clean technology and by 2050, the use of fossil fuel cars etc&#8230; will no longer be a necessity at all but rather an option for those who still love their old gas-powered cars, even though the new ones will blow their doors off and handle better.
> ...



What are you basing this all off of?  Its a mature technology?  Last year it reached its lowest price ever.  Was last year the magic number that it reached its lowest mark?  Do you have any proof of that?  No?  didn't think so.
The food industry is the oldest industry in the world, since, ya know, we've always had to eat.  Yet food constantly gets cheaper and cheaper.  Weird huh?  Computers?  Same thing.  Constantly cheaper.  Each and every year.

And oh yea.  They are not as big of a problem to add to the grid as you think.  Especially when you consider that solar hits its peak at peak hours.  Ya know, the hottest part of the day is usually when the sun is shining the most.  Another of those weird coincidences.  Also studies have already shown that it is possible to run 90% on wind and solar alone.  That 20% number is a joke as many areas already run on much more then this.  Palm springs, California, runs on wind energy alone approximately 300 days a year.  But 20% would be 73 days a year.  How is that possible?  I guess its not.  Palm Springs isn't real I guess right?

Edit:  Also, you know what else requires those peak natural gas plants?  Natural gas.  Thats why when real studies show the price of Natural gas electricity they use combination prices.


----------



## Decus (May 27, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



OK it's clear. Everyone up north needs to move to Palm Springs or to other southern locales. A forced migration could also do wonders for slumping real estate prices in the south. Keep going - you've almost got it solved.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 27, 2012)

The devlopment of green technology belongs in the private sector.  As we have seen, as soon as the government gets an R & D department, the goal is to come up with solutions that the government wants instead of what works.  Companies like Light Squared, Solyandra and all the rest would have gone out of business much sooner without wasting billions of dollars.


----------



## Middleoftheroad (May 27, 2012)

Decus said:


> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



If you think thats what I was suggesting you are pretty thick.  Did you choose to ignore the part where studies have shown that 90% could come from solar and wind alone?  Of course you did.  Why?  Because you can't refute that.

Next.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 27, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Yes solar helps at peak hours IF you have huge air-conditioning loads in the summertime. It is NOT available when most people would home and consuming electricity or charging their EVs. And according to the charts provided by the CAL ISO -- the average summer draw at 10PM is 80% of the daytime peak.. THAT'S where the 20% comes from.. 

The BEST wind farms in the world go dark about 2 days a week. See figure below.







So while there are ample claims that certain cities are TOTALLY wind powered, that stems from the total yearly generation and NOT The certainty that 20 minutes from now, the wind will blow. Thus my comment about the hellacious problem of integrating and using efficiently such a spikey source of power.. 

Your crystal ball needs a tune-up --and some added bandwidth.. And I can tell from your comment about food getting cheaper that YOU didn't go to Safeway to buy the steaks for the BBQ today...


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > MY PREDICTIONS: GREEN TECHNOLOGY: Technology always comes in three phases: At first it is VERY expensive and NOT very efficient. Then, after it has been around a while, it becomes more efficient and affordable by the upper-middle-class or wealthier. Finally, it becomes extremely efficient and affordable by virtually everyone. What do cars, TVs, computers, cell phone all have in common? They were all considered fads or schemes by those who had a financial interest in seeing them fail, and the older people who were more comfortable with the old way of doing things before they were around. This is the case with Green Technology  especially when it comes to cars. All the technology for it is already around. However, there has never before been a product or technology that would so adversely affect so many powerful industries. This is reflected in the negative spin and attacks on green technology by FOX News, which is owned in large part, by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Additionally, American and British Oil interests have bought the patents on green technology for decades, simply to make sure they werent developed. If the technology were something that could be hoarded by ownership of resources, they would have allowed the commercialization of clean tech long ago. But how do you hoard the sun? So once the Green Products are released on a commercially viable scale, they will simply be reverse-engineered and reproduced, driving the cost down even further. The country that develops this technology first, will enjoy the single greatest boost to any economy in the world but only for five to ten years at most. However, the leaders in this technology will enjoy financial wealth at a rate proportionate to the decline of wealth in the Middle East. The Japanese are likely to be the first mass-marketers of a variety of these products. They have no major oil companies and their auto manufacturers are already preparing for what is to come, while American and British media are doing their best to convince their audiences that, although we can fly a man to the moon, we cant figure out a way to build a car that runs on something other than gas. Heating homes and other energy needs will also be addressed by non-fossil fuels within a generation. Remember the first time you saw a solar calculator? This technology will continue to improve until a panel the size of a coffee table, will be sufficient to heat the home it is mounted on. This will apply to virtually every area of clean technology and by 2050, the use of fossil fuel cars etc will no longer be a necessity at all but rather an option for those who still love their old gas-powered cars, even though the new ones will blow their doors off and handle better.
> ...



Well you sound like much more of an expert in the technical aspects of all this. So hmmm. You don't think solar will ever get any better, in any way? And you feel there will NEVER be commercially viable and efficient, non-gas cars?
While you're obviously technically savvy than I on this subject, you display the politically-based hostility toward possibilites that have tremendous upsides and, as i discussed in the OP, you do so for political reasons. I find the emotions on this subject illogical.
Oh. And I'm not asking you to spend your money on anything I'm prediciting. If you're referring to the government, I figure if they can hand out billions to profitable oil companies who bring no new technology, I have no problem with them giving 1/10 of that trying to find someone who can develop something that would be 100x more beneficial to us in the long run.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 27, 2012)

> Well you sound like much more of an expert in the technical aspects of all this. So hmmm. You don't think solar will ever get any better, in any way? And you feel there will NEVER be commercially viable and efficient, non-gas cars?
> While you're obviously technically savvy than I on this subject, you display the politically-based hostility toward possibilites that have tremendous upsides and, as i discussed in the OP, you do so for political reasons. I find the emotions on this subject illogical.
> Oh. And I'm not asking you to spend your money on anything I'm prediciting. If you're referring to the government, I figure if they can hand out billions to profitable oil companies who bring no new technology, I have no problem with them giving 1/10 of that trying to find someone who can develop something that would be 100x more beneficial to us in the long run.



There is no 'politcal based hostility' on my part. Just plain hostility.. From years of studying "alternatives" and the hype that is proffered to the public to "KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE"... There are theoretical maximums for solar conversion. We've about maxxed it out given the other variables of sun angle, heat disspersion, bird poop, etc... It is a good "peaker" technology, exactly suited for some climates on a seasonal basis. That's it. NOT an alternative. It is now a commodity item where incremental "innovations" like Solyndra was offering have no meaning because the marketing winner is price per foot.. 

 Same with wind but with more uncertainty about contributing to the grid on a daily basis.. Forgive me, but the reason shit works is that engineers design systems for "worst case performance"... not hope...

I've watched the Greenies fight over hydro, geothermal (a dirty mining operation that somehow got green approval) and even the PLACEMENT of wind/solar projects. There is no pleasing these people and there is no end to their unsupportable optimism about how we just have to give it 20 more years. Bullshit.. IT's HAD enough time and money.. Time to let science and market back into the picture and get the Gaia worshippers out... 

Right now I'd be jazzed to look at NEW ideas and perhaps some govt "investment" there might be OK. 
Low sized nuclear (neighborhood scaled buried, sealed units) would be interesting. So would advances in hydrogen generation and storage.. 

But the OLD ones are starting to really really irk me when you look at (e.g.) real wind farm daily production charts and snow covered acres of PV solar panels in Germany.. 

Electric cars are a good idea. PLUG-IN electric cars are NOT.. There are vast efficiency increases in electric drive over ICE. Hybrids are our best embodiments of that. STILL tied to fossil fuel.. (and so are 100% electric versions as well, for that matter.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 27, 2012)

BTW: Oil company credits are given for exploration, development and excess capacity. No different from R&D credits that other industry get. Get rid of EVERYTHING except credits for exploring Federal leases. And while you're at it -- charge them realistic terms for those leases... So I'm not supporting any kind of charity for big oil here.

Everytime a leftist presents the "big oil" credits and giveaways, they throw in the kitchen sink to make it look extremely illegitimate.. Even to point of including the cost of the nations' highways as a "big oil giveaway".. Gimmeafreakinbreak..


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> > Well you sound like much more of an expert in the technical aspects of all this. So hmmm. You don't think solar will ever get any better, in any way? And you feel there will NEVER be commercially viable and efficient, non-gas cars?
> > While you're obviously technically savvy than I on this subject, you display the politically-based hostility toward possibilites that have tremendous upsides and, as i discussed in the OP, you do so for political reasons. I find the emotions on this subject illogical.
> > Oh. And I'm not asking you to spend your money on anything I'm prediciting. If you're referring to the government, I figure if they can hand out billions to profitable oil companies who bring no new technology, I have no problem with them giving 1/10 of that trying to find someone who can develop something that would be 100x more beneficial to us in the long run.
> 
> ...



Wild guess. You're older and Republican or at least Conservative, politically. Wasn't exactly a long shot. But your hostility has nothing to do with politics? I don't think it likely that it's just a coincidence that virtually everyone with your views, has the same political profile.

Some of the things you write are beyond my understanding. To me ICE is what goes in a glass of SCOTCH. Unless it's single malt, of course. 

Unlike the LibDems here, I'm fine with Nuke energy. Seems to have about the best safety record of any kind of energy out there.
But the claim that there won't be SOME kind of alternative to fossil-fuel based energy for cars, homes etc... seems along the lines of "If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings."


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 27, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > > Well you sound like much more of an expert in the technical aspects of all this. So hmmm. You don't think solar will ever get any better, in any way? And you feel there will NEVER be commercially viable and efficient, non-gas cars?
> ...



Why is it that whenever someone lays out an argument that makes sense, but you happen to disagree with because of your ignorance, they are  always wingnut Republicans? I got excited about solar energy way back in the 1970a and it is still producing nothing like the promise we keep hearing is 5 or 10 years down the road. Just because you just realized there is a party going on does not mean that that it just started.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 28, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Wild guess. You're older and Republican or at least Conservative, politically. Wasn't exactly a long shot. But your hostility has nothing to do with politics? I don't think it likely that it's just a coincidence that virtually everyone with your views, has the same political profile.
> 
> Some of the things you write are beyond my understanding. To me ICE is what goes in a glass of SCOTCH. Unless it's single malt, of course.
> 
> ...



You're really into guessing aren't you? No offense, but we operate entirely differently as 
Mr Windbag pointed out.. The way this political alignment thing is SUPPOSED to work is that you hold dear certain truths, beliefs and biases that informs you as to how you should vote. You don't INHERIT those truths, beliefs and biases from your political alignment -- OR DO YOU??? 

It's true the hostility I hold for the folks pretending to offer "alternatives" is NOT because of my political alignment. It's because I've studied and informed myself on the likelihood that ANY of these "hopeful energy sources" will actually work to sustain our way of life in a cleaner, greener way. And I've come to conclusion that wind/solar are extremely limited in their overall application.. 

Furthermore, I'm of the belief that energy should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL -- not EXPENSIVE and RARE, and THAT belief alone means that I can't abide by the econauts' efforts to limit our access to power for our civilization and rarely can in good conscience, therefore vote for the crop of today's Democrats who want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE because that's what you get when CONSERVATION and SUSTAINABILITY as policy overrides real concern for finding TRUE alternatives. That MAY be part of a larger belief on the part of the far ECO-Left that growth in economy is a bad thing and that we are raping the limited resources of the earth to achieve a consumption economy that they truely despise.. 

BTW: I rarely vote Dem or Rep if there is a valid 3rd party alternative and I'm EXTREMELY active in 3rd party politics. NEITHER of your 2 parties deserves to be rewarded for being slightly less screwed up than the other.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

LOL.  What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do. 

And then we have the people that say such cannot exist, even though many of the present wind turbines cost less to build, per watt produced, than fossil fuel plants. And solar is going to be below fossil fuel prices in the near future.

Toyota states that by 2020 they will be mass producing batteries that have will give a 600 mile range to a vehicle, at 5 to 10 times less price than the present batteries. 

The paradigm change in energy production and use is just starting. And all the howling and foot dragging by the 'Conservatives' will not change the course of the change one bit. Like their stance on global warming, making this a political issue will only produce a political blowback that they will regret in the near future.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.  What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.
> 
> And then we have the people that say such cannot exist, even though many of the present wind turbines cost less to build, per watt produced, than fossil fuel plants. And solar is going to be below fossil fuel prices in the near future.
> 
> ...



Then you admit that the government has no place funding green energy at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 28, 2012)

Ye Old Rocks:

Doesn't matter what the cost curve for wind or solar does from here. Neither is or will be a reliable PRIMARY alternative for electric power generation.. Certainly not solar in Green Bay or wind in Alabama.  PERHAPS at best, we'll be more able to efficiently incorporate these sources without jerking around the primary generators as we do now..


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.  What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.
> 
> And then we have the people that say such cannot exist, even though many of the present wind turbines cost less to build, per watt produced, than fossil fuel plants. And solar is going to be below fossil fuel prices in the near future.
> 
> ...



Great post and exatly my point in the OP. People have been told to hate scientific progress for political reasons. WTF??? When did the wind and sun become political? When FOX news told the followers it should be.
You don't have to be a genius to see what's coming here. But the emotions have been manipulated so masterfully. 
No one in this thread has ever said "We should convert to solar, wind etc... NOW. it has just been a commentary on the future and inevitable trends. What does change mean to some people here?
Oil that will continue enslaving us to the ME and hurting the environment = Good! 
ANYTHING else that could make us the richest country in the world and cuts huge amounts of terrorist funding = SOCIALIST!!!! 

Oh the whackjobbery....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.  What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.
> 
> And then we have the people that say such cannot exist, even though many of the present wind turbines cost less to build, per watt produced, than fossil fuel plants. And solar is going to be below fossil fuel prices in the near future.
> 
> ...



Batteries are not solar panels. Not one person in this thread is skeptical about improvements in battery technology, which is not even the stupidest part about you bringing this up. The stupidest part is that betteries have nothing to do with energy prodiction, they are energy storage devices.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 28, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.  What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.
> ...



That is more moronic than the post Old Rocks made. No one has been told to hate progress for political reasons. The simple fact is that not all technologies are viable. If they were we would have steam powered dirigibles.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.  What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.
> ...



According to dingbats, the government had no place in funding the Trans-continental railway. Thank God we had some forward looking people at that time.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.  What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.
> ...



For someone not the see the synergy between solar panels and high energy capacity batteries is quite beyond my understanding. An average home uses about a kw an hour, normal running. This could be cut down to one fifth that in an emergency. An EV with a battery that has a 100 kwh capacity could power that home for quite a while. And if that home had solar panels for charging that battery, then one would have indefinate independence if the grid were down. Also, if the solar installation were big enough, the combination of the battery and panels could make one completely independent of the grid.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It's funny. I put the more stupid and negative whackjobs on ignore so i usually don't see their posts. Gotta love a guy who calls someone elae stupid for considering  electric cars to be included in what ia deemed "green technology"! I mean after all, how could anyone consider zero emmissions a "green" thing! Lol
He's juat a small minded contrarian who never poata anything of substance. Easy to ignore


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*Hmmm....... A non-viable technology growing at 70% a year. And even at the lowest estimate of future growth, 20% per year, solar looks like a very viable industry. 

Looks to me like you distaste for solar is entirely political.*

Solar Markets: Overall Growth & Size By Country

As can be seen from the graph at the left, the solar industry has seen remarkable growth in a rebound from the 2009 recession. The bars represent the actual annual installed amount of PV solar systems by manufacturers expressed in giga-watts (1 GW = 1 billion watts). For reference purposes, one nuclear reactor produces about 1.3 GW of electricity per year. Data up to 2011 is from Solarbuzz, the forecast for 2012 is by the author.

The five year growth rate from 2007 to 2011 was approximately 70% per year! The growth rate from 2009 to 2010 was a whopping 172%. The growth rate for 2011 was a more modest 40%, but still great for an entire industry.. The reason for the slowdown to 15% in 2012 is the reduction of incentives in several European countries. While the growth numbers are very impressive, the 27 giga-watts installed in 2011 is just a fraction of one percent of the total amount of electricity that was being generated by all sources. After 2012, the long term growth estimates range from 20% to 30%.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 28, 2012)

My texting sucks btw...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The transcontinental railroad was a triumph of crony capitalism, no wonder moonbats like it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



What synergy between solar power panels and batteries? If it actually exists outside your feeble imagination you should have no problem showing how advances in solar panels have fueled new discoveries in batteries. 

Alternatively, you could admit you totally misused the word synergy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Government subsidies are wonderful things, aren't they?


----------



## percysunshine (May 28, 2012)

Word of the day:

'Niche'.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



If the government were funding the invention of the train, we wouldn't have one today at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I see. And the government was not the one that funded most of the developments in aviation?


----------



## Katzndogz (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The government didn't fund anything.  It purchased ever more developed aircraft thereby providing an incentive for private industry to invent ever more developed aircraft.  Sometimes a governent, not always ours, gave out prizes for better technology or design. 

There is a commercial on television produced by Best Buy promoting all their cell phones.  Statements by all the men who developed the camera, instagram, voice technology, video streaming.   No government funding.  Cell phone towers were built by Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon.  No government involvement.  How many people really think that the cell phone and it's service was funded by the government.

Who did fund the transcontinental railroad?   Did you ever look it up, or just believe the liberal pap that it was the government?   Funding came from private investment, from Crocker, Stanford, Huntington and Hopkins,  men who formed private limited liability companies and invested all they had to lay that track.  The government's involvement was to give the railroads land grants, of which the government kept ownership of half the land.    Later, as the railroad progressed, the government sold bonds to raise money.  Bonds that had to be repaid before more bonds would be issued.  A nice pay as you go program.   In no case did the government hand out checks the way it is trying to do, and failing, with its ridiculous green energy programs.  These programs have half the money given returned to democrats in the form of campaign donations which was the whole point of giving out the money to begin wiith.


----------



## bobgnote (May 29, 2012)

The OP claims technology, including green tech is expensive and inefficient, at first, but I disagree, with regard to KLEPTOMANIA and related media, but kleptos and fascists have been hand-in-hand for years, so they are not new, and their tech is efficient.

The US banned brewing of alcohol in 1918, in such a way as to thwart common development of CO2-neutral grain fuels, in competition with the emerging petroleum industry.  Some nations export petroleum, to us, here in the US, where we are beholden to special interests, such as prison industry, which block media, related to global warming and green technology, on behalf of petroleum and nuclear energy.  That technolody is quite developed.

The Democrat-controlled Congress passed in 15 minutes the Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938, FDR signed it, and this thwarted Ford's and Diesel's wishes, for hemp alcohol, and Ford's existing products, which were made of indestructible hemp plastic, see YouTube and Google, search 'hemp, ford, diesel.'  I'd post links, but I need 15 posts, first.  

The Hemp Stamp Tax Act was declared unconstitutional in 1972, whereupon Nixon founded the DEA.  Our US oil production peaked, that decade.  We declined, ever since.

It seems to me Al Gore admits to die-offs from the carbonic acid exchange, related to anthropogenic global warming, but he always opposed legalization of pot, including industrial hemp, and the Democrats passed the Obamacare debacle, lost the US House, and THEN tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012.

The Republicans tend to support petroleum excesses, including the monstrous fracking, while dismissing AGW and related phenomena, such as accelerating warming and acidification, while the acid has been threatening plankton, eggs, little fish, oysters, reefs, and the entire oceanic food chain.

In the Pacific NW, a big oyster die-off just happened.  The cold, O2-rich waters of the Pacific NW up-welling bring a plankton bloom, which is threatened, since the cold water bears acid, well.  The cod are decimated, and they are not recovering.  

Mass extinction event 6 looms.  The extinction rate is 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal.  If we do not reduce pollution, we will be killing each other, for food.

Eh?  If we cannot simply reduce the carbon footprint of the oppressive, costly drug war, prison, Zionism-related war, legal, and petroleum industries, in a stroke, we will never recover the oceans OR the lands, which suffer die-offs.  Desertification and cyclonic storms are bad; pollution is actually worse.  Dying time is HERE.

If we are not allowed to recover SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY, which is known, we will not even attempt to make CO2-neutral fuels OR to re-green, using genetic engineering, to recover desertified, acidified, and polluted areas, on land and at sea.  If we do not make a fast move, to cut corruption and its carbon media, we will LOSE THE OCEANIC FOOD CHAIN, in a blink!

Technology is, as technology does.  What is complicated, we don't really need, yet.  What is made from hemp and switchgrass, we needed it, YESTERDAY, all-wicked-ready.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > As long as green technology is consumer driven it will evolve at a logical pace consistent with development and affordability. If the left wing politicians get involved and taxpayer funds are authorized based on political agenda or political payoffs all bets are off.
> ...


Depends on the definition of 'tax breaks' and 'subsidies'.

All businesses are able to deduct wear and tear on their facilities and equipment.  Energy companies, to help spur growth and promote the continued building of more infrastructure get to deduct all that in one shot right up front.  This puts more money in their pocket which in turn is sunk back into improving and growing.  Most businesses are forced to do this over the lifetime of the item.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


What the hell are you talking about? It was the government that build the first jets, the first planes that went into space, the first non piloted drones etc etc


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > 'Shit Happens' is one of the laws of thermodynamics.
> ...



Maybe if you would click on the link you would see what I was referring too


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



LOL  How you lie to support your idiot ideology.

First Transcontinental Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land. Completion of the railroad was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line. It was one of the crowning achievements in the crossing of plains and high mountains westward by the Union Pacific and eastward by the Central Pacific. Opened for through traffic on May 10, 1869, with the driving of the "Last Spike" at Promontory Summit, Utah, the road established a mechanized transcontinental transportation network that revolutionized the population and economy of the American West.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Speaking of "small minded contrarians", that would include those who have been brainwashed to considered electric cars as "zero emissions"... Clearly TODAY -- an EV charged at a typical American home barely beats out an ICE (internal combustion engine for all our environmental gurus who don't know this) in terms of bad combustion polluting.. It's only "zero emissions" if it's already charged. Where do you think the energy comes from???? 

The calculus on using "your car to power your home" is a prime example of why I've lost patience with the eco-nauts. If EVERYBODY did this --- we'd have a toxic waste stream created larger than any other in history.. But ignoring the obvious un-greenness of that proposal -- the car powers NOTHING. If you drive it out of garage at night, the house goes dead. Your food rots, your clocks all blink 12:00.... 

To even CHARGE an EV from a solar grid is near impossible today. As the major manufacturers (Leaf/Volt etc) all require a NEW 220V 40A service.... 
From the Leaf manual:



> If I want to "prewire" a new home for a future Nissan LEAF&#8482; owner, what is required?
> A The home charging dock will require a 220/240V 40 amp dedicated circuit connected to a breaker. The charging dock will need to be hard-wired directly to the circuit by a certified electrician.
> 
> What is the estimated time for full charging with 110v, 220v and fast charge stations?
> A It takes about ~30 minutes to 80% at a 480 volt quick-charge station. Starting from a depleted battery, ~7 hours at 220/240V (depending on amperage), about 20 hours at 110/120V.



This WAAAAY exceeds the typical capability of home solar installation.. UNLESS you want 40 hour charging times for the car. Which leaves little juice for your Wii games.... 40 hours because you stayed up late last night and used too much power. A consideration that WILL NOT FLY with the American way of life.. Energy should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL... 

EVEN WITH a doubling of battery capacity, the ability to increase charge rates and discharge rates for future batteries has to be balanced against lifetime, safety issues, and the use of even MORE toxic materials..... 

REAL problems to be solved.. Not a snapping of fingers.. Which is what TRUE "small-minded" contrarians are dreaming up and DEMANDING thru their political power vendors...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

*That is the present technology. And, since most people commute less than 40 miles a day, and the electricity is cheapest at night, that means for most in urban areas, the Leaf would satisfy the majority of their transportation needs.*

Toyota could have 600-mile, solid state battery ready by 2015-2020

The Holy Grail of electric vehicle technology is coming soon, according to Japanese news outlet Nikkei.

The Holy Grail, at least for now, is solid-state battery technology. Nikkei reports that Toyota, along with partners Tokyo Institute of Technology and High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, have developed a prototype solid-state battery that could be ready for commercialization in the 2015-to-2020 time frame.

Here's why sold-state batteries are such an improvement:


Since the [solid state] battery can easily be processed into sheet form, it can store several times the amount of electricity, volume for volume, than the current generation of electric vehicle batteries, according to the developers. This added capacity may extend the maximum driving distance per charge for compact electric vehicles to around 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] from the 200 km [124 miles] or so for existing vehicles.
 As you can see, a solid-state battery has numerous advantages over its liquid electrolyte counterpart, including simpler fabrication, stability, safety and excellent conductivity. The hard part is turning this theory into reality.

*According to other sources, Toyota will have this battery mass manufacture by 2020. At 1/5 to 1/10 the cost of present batteries. If they do that, the EV will have arrived.*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Flat, have you ever heard of grid parrallel? That is the configuration of most solar installations today.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

optionsballer said:


> So instructive that most high end cars in Saudi Arabia are converted to run off of natural gas



Oil is easier to export than nat gas. More profit. Because nat gas has to be turned into Liquid Nat Gas (LNG) for shipping and that is costly.. So they use nat gas domestically as tho it was almost free... which it is in Saudi Arabia..


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Flat, have you ever heard of grid parrallel? That is the configuration of most solar installations today.



Of course, the OPPOSITE of using a massive battery at the load for storage.. Which do you want to discuss. Since "grid-parallel" is "from each according to his ability -- to each according to their needs" socialism --- I'd assume you want to switch to grid parallel. 

Seriously, how is that different than going into the energy business.... Has nothing to do with where YOUR electrons come from...


----------



## Katzndogz (May 29, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



At what government owned factory were these aircraft built?  Which government employed designer drafted the design.  The government BOUGHT these aircraft, they didn't design them or build them.  They were invented incrementally by a number of people in a number of countries.  The Jet Plane is not an American government invention.

The "turbojet", was invented in the 1940s, independently by Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain. The first turbojet aircraft to fly was the Heinkel He 178 prototype of the German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, on August 27, 1939 in Rostock (Germany).[2]

The first flight of a jet engined aircraft to come to popular attention was the Italian Caproni Campini N.1 motorjet prototype that flew on August 27, 1940.[3] It was the first jet aircraft recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (at the time the German He 178 program was still kept secret). Campini had proposed the motorjet in 1932.

The British experimental Gloster E.28/39 first took to the air on May 15, 1941, powered by Sir Frank Whittle's turbojet.[4] After the United States was shown the British work, it produced the Bell XP-59A with a version of the Whittle engine built by General Electric, which flew on October 1, 1942. The Meteor was the first production jet as it entered production a few months before the Me 262.

The first operational jet fighter was the Messerschmitt Me 262,[5] made by Germany during late World War II

Now just who was it that invented the drone?

One of the best weapon systems currently in use, the jihad-killing, pilotless drone, was conceived by a brilliant engineeran Israeli-born Jewand built, like the Apple computer, in a garage.

In 1980, Abraham Karem, an engineer who had emigrated from Israel, retreated into his three-car garage in Hacienda Heights outside Los Angeles and, to the bemusement of his tolerant wife, began to build an aircraft.

The work eventually spilled into the guest room, and when Karem finished more than a year later, he wheeled into his driveway an odd, cigar-shaped craft that was destined to change the way the United States wages war.

The Albatross, as it was called, was transported to the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, where it demonstrated the ability to stay aloft safely for up to 56 hours  a very,very long time in what was then the crash-prone world of drones.

Three iterations and more than a decade of development later, Karems modest-looking drone became the Predator, the lethal, remotely piloted machine that can circle above the enemy for nearly a day before controllers thousands of miles away in the southwestern United States launch Hellfire missiles toward targets they are watching on video screens.

The emergence of hunter-killer and surveillance drones as revolutionary new weapons in the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, and in counterterrorism operations in places such as Pakistan andYemen, has spawned a multibillion-dollar industry, much of it centered in Southern California, once the engine of Cold War military aviation.

Over the next 10 years, the Pentagon plans to purchase more than 700 medium- and large-size drones at a cost of nearly $40 billion, according to a Congressional Budget Office study. Thousands more mini-drones will be fitted in the backpacks of soldiers so they can hand-launch them in minutes to look over the next hill or dive-bomb opposing forces.

If democrats could think, they might actually be useful.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The OP claims technology, including green tech is expensive and inefficient, at first, but I disagree, with regard to KLEPTOMANIA and related media, but kleptos and fascists have been hand-in-hand for years, so they are not new, and their tech is efficient.
> 
> The US banned brewing of alcohol in 1918, in such a way as to thwart common development of CO2-neutral grain fuels, in competition with the emerging petroleum industry.  Some nations export petroleum, to us, here in the US, where we are beholden to special interests, such as prison industry, which block media, related to global warming and green technology, on behalf of petroleum and nuclear energy.  That technolody is quite developed.
> 
> ...


]

The acid is all around you... Might be IN you as well...


----------



## RGR (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> What is made from hemp and switchgrass, we needed it, YESTERDAY, all-wicked-ready.



Oh great, now here comes all the "ain't it great to be stoned!!" angles. Potheads unite!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Which advances are you talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 29, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



No the didn't. The first jet in the US was copied from a British design, the X-15 was built by North American and Reaction, and Reginald Denny developed the RPV, which we now call UAV or drone. Is there any subject you are not completely ignorant about?


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Right. I get it. I'm small-minded because I believe we can eventually develop some kind of energy that will be better than fossil-fuels. 
And those danm horseless carriages are just a fad! 
Lemme guess. You're old, white, Conservative and Republican. Just a guess. LOL! Just kidding. It's not like it your views on energy have anything to do with politics...


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country.... 

I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism? 

First Problem is --- CO2 IS NOT a pollutant and we're not sure whether it's a principal contributor to climate change despite the wailings of idiotchilds like Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.. Ever worry you might be solving a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???

I prefer to save the whales, cleanup REAL toxic sites, and use private property rights to ENCOURAGE smart use of the planet..


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....
> 
> I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?
> 
> ...



Are you upset? I only ask because you seem upset. Let me get you a nice cup of tea and we can start again, shall we? There. That's better.
Let's look at it a different way then. Apparently, you're smarter than 90% of the world's scientists. I applaud you on your positive self-image. Nice. So let's say you're right. There is no such thing as global warming, pollution or whatever. But all those people think there is. And they want to buy things that will, in their minds, be nicer to the planet. There is a BIG demand for such things and the trend is growing because guess who likes all this green stuff the most? Young people. Yup, them youngins be lovin' the Green stuff! 
Now if you find any flaw with any of the above, let me know and I'll be happy to cite all kinds of stuff that supports A) Lots of scientists aren't as smart as you and wrongfully believe in Global Warming, Pollution and so on and B) Young people support these beliefs at over 2:1 to their older counterparts.
So. To continue.
I believe that someone will eventually develop technologies that will make lots of people happy because it is better at stopping the Global Warming and pollution which do not exist.
I also believe that both the company and country that actually LEAD the way in such developments will benefit tremendously and financially.
So why are you SO opposed to the possibility of the USA being the country that LEADS in a much sought after technology?
We used to do that often.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....
> ...



Thanks for the tea -- your Koolaid is coming right up.. YES -- I'm upset. I'm a realist. I live in Engineering/Science. Not a hope fairy fan.

I'm only opposed to continuing the FAILED hope that CURRENT approved "alternatives" are worthy of more time and effort. I'm opposed to misappropriation of capital that SHOULD Be going to the search for NEW and genuinely valid ideas. I'm also opposed to the "bottom line" of the CO2 theory for Global Warming which is we should channel $TRILLIONS into CO2 mitigation. That's misuse of funds that could TRULY go to feeding, hydrating people and cleaning up the earth.. Get it?? 

Greenies have a SERIOUS historical credibility problem with their "technical" proposals for energy and pollution.. 

See the reversal on dams/hydropower for instance.. 
See the arrogant introduction of MTBE into our groundwater.
See the error of pushing Biomass Conversion as a "clean green alternative".
Ditto for Geothermal mining.. 

Tired of giving the "hopers" the lead on environmental issues. These should be tackled from a systematic, scientific, logical progression of research and production and market acceptance. YES folks are ready to buy them -- so the govt shouldn't be subsidizing them except for basic research grants. 

Good concern for the "children" -- but it's time the adults took charge again.

BTW: I don't deny Climate change. But I'm seriously in doubt that we have identified the magnitude of the problem or even the real cause. Despite the Orwellian thought control from EPA --  CO2 is NOT a pollutant. *Do YOU believe that it is? * If you do -- why and how important is it compared to sulphur pollution, mercury pollution, waste stream control from EV batteries... 
There are ample intelligient, capable opposition to the CO2 theory.. They are not waiting on my ingenious ideas and concepts.


----------



## bobgnote (May 30, 2012)

RGR said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > What is made from hemp and switchgrass, we needed it, YESTERDAY, all-wicked-ready.
> ...


Like I posted elsewhere, prison and petroleum industry are united, against legal hemp.

Petroleum industry includes winnutskis, who can go home and sell oil, and fuck off and get their food, when Ukraine wants to let any of that go, since wingnutski won't let the US re-green, for the Stalinist trend, to ban drugs and sell oil.

But Russia gets trouble, when global warming takes out the jet-stream:

Russian Meteorological Center: "There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat." | ThinkProgress

Russia&#8217;s Fires & Pakistan&#8217;s Floods: The Result of a Stagnant Jet Stream? | 80beats | Discover Magazine

Global Warming Causes 300,000 Deaths a Year, Says Kofi Annan thinktank | Common Dreams

Moscow Deaths DOUBLE Amid Smog And Heat Wave (PHOTOS)

A thing called 'NOAA' says this wasn't global warming, but they are assholes, trying to circle back into how we don't need to re-green.  We need to re-green, sorry about luck.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 30, 2012)

Wow.... I think we just discovered that Tardtard (Bfgrn) has a sock.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 30, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Wow.... I think we just discovered that Tardtard (Bfgrn) has a sock.



Dude, you have one of the best avatars here! 

Random but whatever...


----------



## bobgnote (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....
> 
> I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?
> 
> ...


Nimrod, see if you can read the links I paste, for once:

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

Anything in excess can be a _poison,_ and if it participates in an _exchange,_ such as when CO2 mixes with ions, to make H2CO3, carbonic acid, the acid in quantity is poisonous, _and it is a pernicious pollutant!_

You are not much of a scientist, until you shut the fuck up and read something, worth reading.  Read about carbonic acid.  It comes from excessive CO2-emissions.

Warming and acidification are accelerating, hockey-stick graph, or not!  Hey, when the melted glacial ice, the warming bodies of water, and the lands, formerly covered by permafrost release methane and more CO2, the warming AND the acidification go faster!

Your remark about how CO2 is not a pollutant is stupid, and at best, irrelevant.  The carbonic acid buildup is the most dangerous, global warming-related phenomenon.  Anybody who doesn't think so is not only an asshole, that asshole is a _stupid, cocksure, fuck-tard of an asshole!_

We re-green, or else.  And no, the carbonic acid buildup is not due, to assholes at the beach tossing the rest of their sodas, into the ocean.  BTW, don't make a kid, with another D; remember what that nice Mr.Mencia said about that.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Hmmm. I'm not sure what to say here. I don't believe I am subect to Orwelian mind control because I'm not absolutely convinced about Global Warming. Seems to me the planet has done that before without our help. So I don't know. 
I don't know if CO2 is a pollutant. I have heard that too much of it in the atmosphere has negative effects but again, unlike you, I'm  not a scientist - and unlike most people here, I don't claim to be an expert in everything.

Just a thought. I have learned much and even changed my views on a few things from the education I have received by the more civil posters here. In a couple areas, my views have become more Conservative. In one, I have become more Liberal.
This can be a place for you to yell at all the idiots who don't know what you know OR it can be a place for you to share what you know, when you find someone who is open minded.

For example, I have a friend in Austria (one of my favorite countries) who claims he has a great big BMW 7 series that runs on water or hydrogen. I think he's messing with me. What do you think? 
And if that works, wouldn't it be a good thing?


----------



## RGR (May 30, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The Republicans tend to support petroleum excesses, including the monstrous fracking,



What is "the monstrous fracking"? Did you mean to say kraken? Hydraulic fracturing has been going on since the late 1940's, at what point in time did it become "monstrous" rather than "just another thing they've been doing in the oil field for more than half a century"?


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....
> ...



THanks for pointing this out. YOU --- are quite acidic and your demeanor is an instant turn-off to any scientific or rational discussion of ocean acidification. BUT -- I admit, I worry MORE about this aspect of building CO2 than the temperature angle, land species inability to handle G-warming, or other deaths from superstorms.. 

THis SHOULD be studied sooner rather than later so that we can assess the consequences.
You should calm down and realize that rather than the 30% change in PH that we've seen in a century or 2, you'd need another 900% in H+ acidity to turn the ocean truly acidic.

So calm down, read the history of why you don't hear about "acid rain" anymore and realize that MAN is contributing 30GT of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, while the ocean and land is contributing about 770GT/year into the atmosphere. A difference of just 5% in natural CO2 from the ocean or land would far outweight the anthropogenic contribution.

It's still ridiculous to consider CO2 as a pollutant. Because there are ZERO, ZILCH, NADA health effects pertaining to sequestered or atmospheric CO2. But IF we are affecting the ocean chemistry in ways that affect marine fauna and flora, you would have the most powerful argument for limiting CO2 emissions.. And maybe keep the dream alive of hobbling the world economy by restricting available energy sources.

BTW -- CO2 absorbed in the ocean acts as a plant stimulator just like it does on land. There is likely evidence that this buffering effect would result in INCREASED seagrass, kelp and other plants capable of absorbing the CO2 before the chemistry is capable of PH lowering..


----------



## tjvh (May 30, 2012)

whitehall said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Nearly EVERYTHING a Consumer "consumes" requires Oil to to bring those goods to market.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

{IndieLogic________}



> Hmmm. I'm not sure what to say here. I don't believe I am subect to Orwelian mind control because I'm not absolutely convinced about Global Warming. Seems to me the planet has done that before without our help. So I don't know.
> I don't know if CO2 is a pollutant. I have heard that too much of it in the atmosphere has negative effects but again, unlike you, I'm not a scientist - and unlike most people here, I don't claim to be an expert in everything.
> 
> Just a thought. I have learned much and even changed my views on a few things from the education I have received by the more civil posters here. In a couple areas, my views have become more Conservative. In one, I have become more Liberal.
> ...



I'm also here to discuss stufff. I'm hoping that the time I spend is MORE productive than watching the Hatfields and McCoys on TV tonight. Kinda more violent here tho.. 

Starting out in OP about conspiracies and Fox News and Saudi Princes -- You my sometimes chatbuddy aren't completely innocent of copping an attitude either... What really sets me off is the implication that scientists and engineers are just foot-dragging pessimists. That it's obviously time to make cars fly on water -- so what's the problem Flacaltenn? Why haven't you done that yet? Too Republican or Too old FlacalTenn -- which is it? Yeah -- you said that.

Anyways.... 

The 7 Bimmer is probably a fuel cell proto or limited production. Could run on hydrogen. Technology's been around for  20 or 30 years.. Apollo Capsule was powered by fuel cells.

Problem is -- We can't just grab hydrogen from the atmosphere. Just storing it takes energy to maintain fuel density and compression. It's too light. That's why the Hindenburg could float that well and shine sooo brightly.. I'd be all for a hydrogen fueled transport sector. But the way things are -- you need a LOT of excess energy laying around to produce it. That's not gonna happen in "conservation" frame of mind. If electricity was CHEAP and PLENTIFUL rather than RARE and EXPENSIVE as the eco-nauts want it -- we COULD supply enough hydrogen to do fuel cells. Assuming not too many lawyers got involved with the few explosions that would result.. Or you could run fuel cells on nat gas --- but what does that solve?

Wish I could be the optimist that can snap fingers and get energy policy sometimes. Must be nice...


----------



## TodHardin (May 30, 2012)

why?


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> {IndieLogic________}
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So then if you were given an ultimatum: Find the next energy source. Do it within 30 years. make it commercially viable and reasonably safe. Or we kill your dog.

What direction would you head in and why?


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > {IndieLogic________}
> ...



Now you're serious.. I'm jazzed.. 

I've already given you the policy. Energy should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL --- not RARE and EXPENSIVE. That takes the leftist ulterior motive of hobbling business growth and assuming economic control right out of the picture. Nothing GREAT gets accomplished in the dark except sex. 

So the emphasis turns from conservation to production. Let the market determine which lightbulbs folks want. I'll bet MOST will turn to LED bulbs in the next 5 years anyway.. Cut out the subsidies to GE/Westinghouse for building crap they were gonna build anyway. Take the $150 tax credit these phony green giants get for each green washer/dryer and use it to fund the following... 

For electricity production, I'd emphasize nuclear power. We have 30 YEARS of development sitting on the shelf not being used because of political reasons. Complete Yucca Mtn for waste storage. Start a quick 4 year demonstration of the best technologies available. Provide Federal land, siting and quick approvals of the 3 best designs and light them up. So as not to SHOVE this technology down people's throats -- TEST THEM, STRESS THEM and PROVE the safety issues. In remote testing grounds, we could push them to the limits and observe what happens.  Our 50 or so existing nuke plants are SO OLD, that we'd need 100 new ones in a couple decades to start phasing out coal, tearing down the dams to free the salmon and mitigating our CO2 emissions. 

None of that helps with the transportation energy problem unless you want to charge 200Million Electric Vehicles which you MIGHT NOW have the power to do with nuclear. TRULY becomes a zero emissions technology. But better than that -- let's shift crony capitalism dollars from opportunistic leeches in the "green alternatives" to hydrogen research and development. Fuel cells are a much better LONGER term solution than EVs because of fill-up times, range, reliability. Also takes stress off the grid from all the transportation that is required. 
ALso gets rid of the ugly problem that no one is facing up to yet of BILLIONS of tons of toxic EV battery recycling and waste.

Continue to develop oil/nat gas reserves DOMESTICALLY to send OPEC a message and put AMERICANS to work. 

These 2 changes buys us time.. It would also GREATLY reduce greenhouse gases and TRUE pollution. 

THEN -- after 30 years and a greener earth, I'll give you a better plan.. Just don't hurt my dog....


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Thanks for the education. The dog is safe.
For now.


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

Look at all the flathead crock, about getting more petroleum, without a bit of CO2-neutral biomass!  You cannot educate or argue with a zombie.

OK, when the carbonic acid takes out the food chain, oceans first, I bet you have a hand-gun, wing-nut.  Give us all a break, and shoot _yourself_, when your life fucks all up.  Wing-nuts who want to shoot somebody else suck.


----------

