Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Eeezee
You've strayed way off topic. Maintaining an edge in the energy market earns ludicrous amounts of money. This is a fact. As energy technology develops and becomes cheap, the ones who control and develop the technology will control the costs at which they sell this technology to others. Consider also that early development can allow you to get a jump on purchasing the materials, allowing you to sell those materials to others for a higher premium once the technology is widespread.
Except, if a solar cell costs 'relatively' little, it's probably made out of relatively commonplace materials which are sold on the global market. Unless George Bush has some sort of Hand of Midas to create something new, of course.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because the manufacturing process is cheap doesn't mean that the materials are cheap. Look at any photovoltaic material; you'll find that in many cases the raw materials are expensive, but the most expensive part is the manufacturing process. Developing a cheaper manufacturing process might still involve rare materials, and so you can develop a hold on the market.
Regardless, you're making a mint on the technology sales alone even if the materials are discarded banana peels. And I'm not sure why you'd think George Bush plays into this...
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Let's say Germany develops a new solar cell that is 99% efficient and costs relatively little to build. However, they keep the complex manufacturing process a secret; you must purchase it. We could probably reverse engineer it if we dump enough money into the project, but it would cost much more money than simply purchasing the technology from Germany. In other words, Germany sells this technology to every developed nation in the world at their own price and makes a mint.
Let's say they do. GTKeeper's assertion was that we could make '$trillions' on this; I have no idea how reverse engineering a $5k product (about the maximum a cheap car engine can cost) can cost anywhere near that figure.
India is delving into nuclear power. They don't have nuclear power; we do. Are they asking us to build them nuclear power plants? No, they're doing it themselves.
Obviously you have no experience in the subject, so I would suggest you stop implying that it will cost a paltry sum to reverse engineer some of the more complex solar cells available. Besides, who said that the power generation has to be photovoltaic? Suppose Germany created a whole new method, something that has never been seen before. What then?
India has bought numerous patents from various nuclear powered countries in the past. They have paid the entry fees. Now their scientists and engineers are designing their own reactors with new technology.
You're really going out of your way to compare apples to oranges here.
FURTHERMORE, you've gone back on your original argument! India is spending money, investing in energy, because they don't want to have to buy newer reactor designs from other countries! This is exactly what I'm proposing we do, and exactly the opposite of what you've stated you'd have us do (wait for other countries to develop first and copy them - how patriotic of you, to suggest that we take a seat).
The US uses about 100 quadrillion BTUs of energy a year. I googled and found a 1 meter solar panel generates about 433 BTUs per hour, or a little less than 2 million a year. Multiply that by 10 if you want, so 20 million.
We'd have to buy billions of these panels. And yet, reverse engineering the technology is supposed to be more expensive? If they make a $500 profit (10%) on a $5k panel, that's $500b we'd have to pay them.
It would be cheaper to go to war with them and just steal the power plant. It's worked twice.
Again, apples to oranges - you're comparing the costs of reverse engineering to the cost of deployment for seemingly no reason. For a new solar panel, the reverse engineering cost will easily be on the same magnitude as developing the technology ourselves - simply figuring out what's in it does not tell you how to make one, so you'll either go through a lot of trial and error or you'll have to hunker down and actually do the research, just like the original researchers in the foreign country did first. Sorry, but you're wrong. Reverse engineering a new solar cell is not the same as reverse engineering a VCR. It might be as easy, but more likely it is significantly more complicated.
Also, where are your panels? Are they placed on top of a California home? Are they in the Mojave desert? Are they somewhere in Ohio? Where do your numbers come from? Furthermore, what kind of solar panel is this? There are many types, each with its own efficiency. Without efficiency rating and location, your numbers are meaningless.
You seem to be confused. There are two choices
1) Purchase the technology from foreign country OR reverse engineer it ourselves, either way the foreign country ends up making more money than we do off of the new technology (ie net loss)
2) Develop the technology ourselves and sell it to other countries. (ie net gain)
Which option do you suppose is more profitable? I'm not suggesting that we buy/sell each individual panel; eventually someone else will discover the secret anyway. It's far wiser to sell the manufacturing secret itself, up front. With that money, the research costs will have paid themselves off several times over. Get it? It's more profitable to do the research yourself!
Ah yes, let's go to war with Germany again! That will go over real well. You would have fit right in with the Germans in WWI or WWII. And suppose the technology is destroyed before we get there? Oh well, I suppose we'll just occupy them anyway. In any case, a war with any EU nation will make Iraq look like a bargain. I sincerely hope that last comment was sarcasm. $500b will be the ante for that kind of war
Facebook
Twitter