Where do you stand on alternative energy

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What if we start a "Manhattan Project" to remove fossil fuels from our electrical grid.

Instead of some pie in the sky program to find new sources of energy this is one that we could succeed at with 100% certainty.

Wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric and nuclear power could do the job, along with anything else we find in the near future.

And then after we completed this program we could work on converting our cars to plug in electrical cars. Plug-in cars would most likely be adequate for nearly everyone in the country with only long haul truckers and people who travel a lot needed gas cars.

sounds great to me!

now, how come NONE of our candidates speak in those terms? each of them discusses parts of that solution, but NONE of them seem willing to make all of it happen yesterday!

Step one: convert the entire country to a nuclear/solar/hydro/wind power grid.
Step two: impose legislation that forces car manufacturers to convert all of their new vehicles to electricity.
Step three: Create and fund a new "Manhattan Project" to develop cold fusion or some other major breakthrough in energy.
Step four: Give Saudi Arabia the big middle finger!

Like i said, that sounds great to me!

Coal is the fuel for more than half of the electricity production in the United States.

There needs to be several interim steps to reduce its use. One possibility is catalytic gasification into natural gas. There are problems with it, of course.

They have to effectively remove the catalyst and reduce overall CO2. Then there is distinct possibility that natural gas prices will drop making gasification much less cost effective.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

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.

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.

When have they ever bought plant patents from us? India has a specific 1970 law on the books deregulating intellectual property for power, food, and what they deem in the national interest.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...une01/india_03-15.html

The recent trade agreement revolves around nuclear fuel, and inspections to ensure that fuel isn't put in weapons. It doesn't have anything to do infrastructure.

The basics of nuclear fission were known at the early part of the 20th century, 40 years before we blew up Japan. If there's something new, that nobody knows about, why would anyone believe it would be anything less than 40 years before it came to market?

Originally posted by: Eeezee
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!

The energy panel numbers were in the southwest US. If you don't like them, multiply them by 10, again, so now you're 100x as efficient. Still doesn't change the big picture.

That's twice you've asserted that reverse engineering an unknown product/technology is somehow going to be expensive without any rationale whatsoever. No, I don't know how much this will cost either, but I do know:

1. We've dumped billions we don't have into solar/corn/etc subsidies and gotten nothing out of it.
2. Research is inherently speculative. Research is less speculative when you have a working model.
3. Other nations have a rather lousy record of respecting our intellectual property when it comes to necessities.
4. Secrets, once you sell them, cease to be secrets.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And then after we completed this program we could work on converting our cars to plug in electrical cars. Plug-in cars would most likely be adequate for nearly everyone in the country with only long haul truckers and people who travel a lot needed gas cars.

and if we have an electrified modern railway system instead of the 19th century relic a lot of the country is saddled with even those last two could be largely eliminated.

 

[nageov3t]

I am opposed to alternative energy... God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and his super rad solar panels.

 

[GTKeeper]

Winnar,


I think the main issue with your line of thinking is that you think that if we sit on our ass and do nothing things will magically resolve themselves.

If in 1950 I told you that in about a decade roughly 15 years after world war II America would fly a jet that still to this day has an undisclosed top speed (The SR 71) most people would have LAUGHED.

If in 1960 I told you that there would be a man on the moon before 1970, you would have laughed as well.

People like you block progress. Ideas need to be encouraged and innovation is the most valuable asset America has.

Take the bailout money, all 700 billion of it, invest it in a new energy source or more efficient energy source. I seriously doubt the program would be a TOTAL failure like you suggest. If we were to come up with something revolutionary or even something that is 20% more efficient, which in energy terms is HUGE, we would be sitting on a gold mine.

Even if its a new Turbine, that lets say costs 10k or 5k or whatever other magic number you come up with, maybe we are the only ones that can produce it due to manufacturing constraints. Like I said before I dont see China producing intel microchips that is a copy of ours. I don't see China copying Boeing or Airbus jets.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Whoever decides to do this is going to have to firmly state that fossil fuels are finite and will run out, no we don't have the time of day it will happen, but it will happen. What needs to be done is to start researching alternative energy sources.
1) Take current knowledge and expand upon it, developing it to be more resourceful
2) Another team start with a totally blank slate and see what they can come up with.
I believe the Manhattan Project analogy is dead on. We need the most elite scientists grouped together with a common goal. And maybe, the end result won't be achieved because of a monetary award, but because it could be the most beneficial discovery ever to man.
If we could eliminate oil as a fuel source, utilize insert new technology here the global economy would change, mankinds thinking would change and hopefully we could slowly start reversing all of the damage we've done via burning oil/coal in one way or another.
It's a dream right now, but so was navigating the open seas. It will just take some brave people to do it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: palehorse
I really think McCain dropped the ball on the "Manhattan-like Project" question last night. He should have answered with one simple word, "YES!" Nut, alas, he just rambled on about R&D bullshit and turning each development over to private industry... blah blah.

IMO, a project of that magnitude, and focus, is exactly what we need to solve the energy crisis.

Take 100 of the smartest scientists on the planet, place them in a facility up in the hills, and tell them that they shouldn't come out until they've solved the f'n problem and invented a viable source of alternative energy. Pay them big bucks and treat them like all-stars. But, don't settle for anything less than a real solution!

We should have started such a project yesterday... bah...

lol isn't that how it works now? except with VC money vs govt money? honestly i don't feel like pumping "$10 billion" to a manhattan project will do any good. all the talent works in private industry and are currently doing it now.

No, it doesn't work that way at all because making cheap energy is NOT a priority. Making a profit is. The same mentality that brought you the mortgage crisis directs research. Making money and making the best ideas aren't always tied together. The brains behind the Manhattan Project didn't work for corporations nearly as much as academia. Check out what MIT is doing these days. No, private industry is good for economies of scale, but breakthroughs? Not so good these days.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Winnar,


I think the main issue with your line of thinking is that you think that if we sit on our ass and do nothing things will magically resolve themselves.

If in 1950 I told you that in about a decade roughly 15 years after world war II America would fly a jet that still to this day has an undisclosed top speed (The SR 71) most people would have LAUGHED.

If in 1960 I told you that there would be a man on the moon before 1970, you would have laughed as well.

People like you block progress. Ideas need to be encouraged and innovation is the most valuable asset America has.

Take the bailout money, all 700 billion of it, invest it in a new energy source or more efficient energy source. I seriously doubt the program would be a TOTAL failure like you suggest. If we were to come up with something revolutionary or even something that is 20% more efficient, which in energy terms is HUGE, we would be sitting on a gold mine.

Even if its a new Turbine, that lets say costs 10k or 5k or whatever other magic number you come up with, maybe we are the only ones that can produce it due to manufacturing constraints. Like I said before I dont see China producing intel microchips that is a copy of ours. I don't see China copying Boeing or Airbus jets.

1. We don't have a known sucessor to the SR-71 due to lack of necessity, slashed military budgets since 1990, cost, and the fact that its difficult to keep the pilot alive at those conditions. We have faster unmanned aircraft and satellites which serve its reconnaissance purpose. Of course, the Air Force is full of secret projects.
2. The bailout money is already spent. Spilt milk sort of thing.
3. Alternative energy has already been a total failure.
4. The fact that they haven't built their own passenger planes doesn't mean they can't if they had to for their national security. They're just unveiled a new fighter jet.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/news/fighter.php

and most importantly, in the 50s and 60s we weren't dumping government money into health care.

Oh, and before I forget, we've already tried it, with Nixon's project independence. Didn't work.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: winnar111

2. The bailout money is already spent. Spilt milk sort of thing.

link?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And then after we completed this program we could work on converting our cars to plug in electrical cars. Plug-in cars would most likely be adequate for nearly everyone in the country with only long haul truckers and people who travel a lot needed gas cars.

and if we have an electrified modern railway system instead of the 19th century relic a lot of the country is saddled with even those last two could be largely eliminated.

I agree that we could electrify our rail system. But our current rail system moves a small % of our overall freight and it would never be practical to move ALL of our freight this way.

Nor is it practical for most people to use rail for travel.

The last and hardest people to get to electrical cars will be vendors and sales people. The Pepsi truck that drives 50-100 miles a day. The UPS truck or mail man etc etc.

Of course... it takes 10 years to build a nuke plant. So it will take 20-30 years to build enough to power the whole country. In that time frame we may come up with better batteries that will hold enough of a charge that they could be used in UPS trucks.

In practical terms we are talking about an overall plan that will take 50 years to implement.

Even if we passed a law tomorrow that required every car to be a plugin hybrid electric it would take 5-10 years before all new cars could be converted and another 10 years to get the old gas only cars off the road. So 20 years total.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: winnar111

2. The bailout money is already spent. Spilt milk sort of thing.

link?

Well, I didn't mean literally spent. It's been authorized, and is going to be spent soon enough, well before anyone can do anything about energy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

1. We've dumped billions we don't have into solar/corn/etc subsidies and gotten nothing out of it.

2. Research is inherently speculative. Research is less speculative when you have a working model.

3. Other nations have a rather lousy record of respecting our intellectual property when it comes to necessities.

4. Secrets, once you sell them, cease to be secrets.

Well
1. What we've done is spend billions on things that the scientific community has little say in. What new technologies have been heavily invested in as far as solar? Not many,
Who came up with corn? George Bush and the like as a farming subsidy.

2. Of course it's speculative. That's why Einstein said "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research". So we get a working model. Let's go with corn? In effect are saying "Let's only buy lottery tickets that will win". No one knows what benefit the world will see in our childrens lifetimes from what we do today. Some of it will help today, but not all. We ought to be glad we didn't overly direct the Curies, or Coulomb or Einstein. There is nothing wrong with direction, since those Curies weren't looking for a cure for polio, but there's a light hand needed by any overseer.

3. I don't give a crap about making money. If we come up with a way to get a barrel's worth of energy for a buck, let them steal it if they want. Getting rid of coal fired plants and oil would be fantastic.

4. See #3. Money is petty stuff compared to what our needs are. Let the govt. fund research and make it public domain for all I care.

 

[ElFenix]

part of the problem with the rail system is that it was set up to go east-west. getting north-south on it is a pain in the rear. so we'd definitely need new trunk lines that can run straight and fast at a low cost per freight-ton.

rick perry was trying to get that accomplished for texas but some farmers, nau-conspiracy theorists, and people generally opposed to privately managed toll roads seem to have shot it down.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
If in 1950 I told you that in about a decade roughly 15 years after world war II America would fly a jet that still to this day has an undisclosed top speed (The SR 71) most people would have LAUGHED.

If in 1960 I told you that there would be a man on the moon before 1970, you would have laughed as well.

The SR 71 and the man on the moon both involved technology that existed at the time.

The first liquid-fueled rocket was launched in 1926. By time we got to the moon we had been working on rockets for 30 years.

And the SR 71 used a really fancy jet engine.

My point is that neither the moon mission or the SR 71 involved 100% new technology being creating out of thin air. The idea that we can pour $10-15 billion a year into research and some how produce some type of miracle energy source is naive. We are better off focusing our efforts and money into improving what we already have in existence.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL.

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

1) FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
2) FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
3) FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL.

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL.

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL.

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL.

Hmmm, I see....

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

1. We've dumped billions we don't have into solar/corn/etc subsidies and gotten nothing out of it.

2. Research is inherently speculative. Research is less speculative when you have a working model.

3. Other nations have a rather lousy record of respecting our intellectual property when it comes to necessities.

4. Secrets, once you sell them, cease to be secrets.

Well
1. What we've done is spend billions on things that the scientific community has little say in. What new technologies have been heavily invested in as far as solar? Not many,
Who came up with corn? George Bush and the like as a farming subsidy.

2. Of course it's speculative. That's why Einstein said "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research". So we get a working model. Let's go with corn? In effect are saying "Let's only buy lottery tickets that will win". No one knows what benefit the world will see in our childrens lifetimes from what we do today. Some of it will help today, but not all. We ought to be glad we didn't overly direct the Curies, or Coulomb or Einstein. There is nothing wrong with direction, since those Curies weren't looking for a cure for polio, but there's a light hand needed by any overseer.

Funny. We had corn subsidies long before George Bush, and our next probable President is practically in the pocket of the corn lobby. We've dumped $50 billion since 1995 into corn, and still can't produce ethanol as cheap as Brazil can, which is why a certain someone has fought a repeal of the ethanol tariff. And that ignores the increased price of food.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense


ROFL! :laugh:

Nuclear power already works. Yet we don't work with proven technology because of the envirofundies.

It's rather ridiculous how we are selling nuclear fuel to India because the nutcases won't let us use it in the USA.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

"Alternative Energy" is another one of those touchy-feely warm 'n' fuzzy things that sound good but may not make economic sense. In contrast, nuclear power makes sense but scares the beejeezus out of a primative and mindless populace.

Yet it's the smart enlightened lefties that are against nukular power and the dumb right wing fundies that are for it. hmmm...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: palehorse
I really think McCain dropped the ball on the "Manhattan-like Project" question last night. He should have answered with one simple word, "YES!" Nut, alas, he just rambled on about R&D bullshit and turning each development over to private industry... blah blah.

IMO, a project of that magnitude, and focus, is exactly what we need to solve the energy crisis.

Take 100 of the smartest scientists on the planet, place them in a facility up in the hills, and tell them that they shouldn't come out until they've solved the f'n problem and invented a viable source of alternative energy. Pay them big bucks and treat them like all-stars. But, don't settle for anything less than a real solution!

We should have started such a project yesterday... bah...

lol isn't that how it works now? except with VC money vs govt money? honestly i don't feel like pumping "$10 billion" to a manhattan project will do any good. all the talent works in private industry and are currently doing it now.

No, it doesn't work that way at all because making cheap energy is NOT a priority. Making a profit is. The same mentality that brought you the mortgage crisis directs research. Making money and making the best ideas aren't always tied together. The brains behind the Manhattan Project didn't work for corporations nearly as much as academia. Check out what MIT is doing these days. No, private industry is good for economies of scale, but breakthroughs? Not so good these days.

Yes, it does work that way because the point would be to make an economically viable method to alternative energy. As is, we can spend a gagillion dollars to convert to an alternative source because the technology is there, but we'd be wasting our money. This isn't Sim City where with a couple clicks you destroy your energy infrastructure and then replace it with one that costs 100x more.

Manhattan project was different because it didn't need to be economically viable. It was pump money, build nuke, nuke the japs and nazis, the end.

A manhattan project to develop alternative energy will be a ginormous waste of money because all the ideas currently exist. Pumping billions and boosting scientist pay isn't going to all of a sudden make it economically viable.

you make it sound like our top energy scientists are sitting around doing nothing. fact is they are getting well paid by govt or corporations to develop the next big shit.

 

[Xellos2099]

Some Middle East government openly support terrorism. Think of it this way, if we buy oil from OPEC nation, a part of their profit will go to fund terrorism. If this is not supporting terrorism, I don't know what is. Don't EVEN debate about this, we all know former Iraq government support Terrorism with those trainign camp in their country.

Also, I don't think government should play a hand in developing and regulating the power sector of the economy. If there is real a shortage of oil, then company would automatically develop new source or power in order to stay competitive or made car more fuel efficient without government intervention since no one will buy the old model.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: palehorse
I really think McCain dropped the ball on the "Manhattan-like Project" question last night. He should have answered with one simple word, "YES!" Nut, alas, he just rambled on about R&D bullshit and turning each development over to private industry... blah blah.

IMO, a project of that magnitude, and focus, is exactly what we need to solve the energy crisis.

Take 100 of the smartest scientists on the planet, place them in a facility up in the hills, and tell them that they shouldn't come out until they've solved the f'n problem and invented a viable source of alternative energy. Pay them big bucks and treat them like all-stars. But, don't settle for anything less than a real solution!

We should have started such a project yesterday... bah...

lol isn't that how it works now? except with VC money vs govt money? honestly i don't feel like pumping "$10 billion" to a manhattan project will do any good. all the talent works in private industry and are currently doing it now.

No, it doesn't work that way at all because making cheap energy is NOT a priority. Making a profit is. The same mentality that brought you the mortgage crisis directs research. Making money and making the best ideas aren't always tied together. The brains behind the Manhattan Project didn't work for corporations nearly as much as academia. Check out what MIT is doing these days. No, private industry is good for economies of scale, but breakthroughs? Not so good these days.

Yes, it does work that way because the point would be to make an economically viable method to alternative energy. As is, we can spend a gagillion dollars to convert to an alternative source because the technology is there, but we'd be wasting our money. This isn't Sim City where with a couple clicks you destroy your energy infrastructure and then replace it with one that costs 100x more.

Manhattan project was different because it didn't need to be economically viable. It was pump money, build nuke, nuke the japs and nazis, the end.

A manhattan project to develop alternative energy will be a ginormous waste of money because all the ideas currently exist. Pumping billions and boosting scientist pay isn't going to all of a sudden make it economically viable.

you make it sound like our top energy scientists are sitting around doing nothing. fact is they are getting well paid by govt or corporations to develop the next big shit.

Around the time of Maxwell, there was the feeling that all the ideas existed. There was no reason to investigate, because what's the point if you know everything? Your's is a remarkable claim made down through the centuries, and it's always turned out wrong.

Industry isn't concerned about what's best for the people, it's concerned about what's best for its pocket. Heck, I was trying out how to get my new Ipod to talk to my PS3 media server wirelessly with all the tags. Well you can't do that. Why? Because in the end someone isn't getting paid what think they should in licensing. Modern radio stations are the best possible? No, they suck. Why? Because they are optimized for profit. How to squeeze the most money out of a minute.

So why is Exxon any different?
Why aren't there less expensive solar cells? Because it isn't possible? No, that's not the case. There is a start up company producing relatively inexpensive solar material which would cost considerably less still if it were massively funded. So who is spending that kind of money? No one. Oh, yes a few invested and hopefully get rewarded but compared to the advertising budget of a pharma company? Nil.

Business isn't done by researchers. It's by accountants. Not always that way.

Here's the real American business model today.

So many things discovered, but now it's a liability because it doesn't contribute to the black ink of the next quarter balance sheet.

No, trusting business to come up with answers in a timely solution is like counting on an deregulated banking industry. That got us less than no where.

Sure, fund small start up companies, but meeting the next quarter market expectation is paramount, not the nation.

 

[JS80]

There is no conspiracy. What part of Silicon and Tellurium are scarce resources don't you get? Do you know how many solar developers there are out there?

Business is done by ENTREPRENEURS. You may have a point back in the 60s that Exxon had enough power and resources to suppress new technology that could threaten the oil infrastructure, but it's the 21st century. Shit like that is nearly impossible. Too much FREE flow of capital and information.

Now if the top scientists mysteriously are dying from accidents, then you'd have some ground, but it's ridiculous to say Bell Labs shut down one of their many R&D departments...for what, a conspiracy to stop new technology?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JS80
There is no conspiracy. What part of Silicon and Tellurium are scarce resources don't you get? Do you know how many solar developers there are out there?

Business is done by ENTREPRENEURS. You may have a point back in the 60s that Exxon had enough power and resources to suppress new technology that could threaten the oil infrastructure, but it's the 21st century. Shit like that is nearly impossible. Too much FREE flow of capital and information.

Now if the top scientists mysteriously are dying from accidents, then you'd have some ground, but it's ridiculous to say Bell Labs shut down one of their many R&D departments...for what, a conspiracy to stop new technology?

Of course there is no conspiracy. The research ended because business is not worried about long term profits. Again they are looking to make next quarters expectations. Research is a loss in the short term, and short term gain is what it's all about.

That is precisely why Bell dumped it's programs. Now precisely how does that philosphy benefit new energy R&D?

Know what the biggest ticket item for pharma used to be? Research.
Know what it is now? Advertising.

Why? Because advertising sells, not research.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JS80
There is no conspiracy. What part of Silicon and Tellurium are scarce resources don't you get? Do you know how many solar developers there are out there?

Business is done by ENTREPRENEURS. You may have a point back in the 60s that Exxon had enough power and resources to suppress new technology that could threaten the oil infrastructure, but it's the 21st century. Shit like that is nearly impossible. Too much FREE flow of capital and information.

Now if the top scientists mysteriously are dying from accidents, then you'd have some ground, but it's ridiculous to say Bell Labs shut down one of their many R&D departments...for what, a conspiracy to stop new technology?

Of course there is no conspiracy. The research ended because business is not worried about long term profits. Again they are looking to make next quarters expectations. Research is a loss in the short term, and short term gain is what it's all about.

That is precisely why Bell dumped it's programs. Now precisely how does that philosphy benefit new energy R&D?

Know what the biggest ticket item for pharma used to be? Research.
Know what it is now? Advertising.

Why? Because advertising sells, not research.

lol no, bell dumped it's program because they are forecasting there is no long term benefit.

Why would big pharma continue spending the big money on R&D when they've already developed their blockbuster drugs? these used to be little ventures that had $100 million losses, now that they have their blockbuster, the point is to maximize recovery and profits until the patent expires. That requires advertising to the public on why they think you should take the drug. Once a pharma co becomes a "big pharma" co they become a sales & marketing firm and their business model is based on marketing and acquiring new drugs for their portfolio.

There are and will continue to be the small VC funded pharma cos that are developing the next blockbuster drug. Often times these companies are funded by big pharma, hence a lot of R&D money is diverted to investment, and the expense doesn't show up on the income statement.

it's funny listening to an IT monkey trying to have a conversation about business.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JS80
There is no conspiracy. What part of Silicon and Tellurium are scarce resources don't you get? Do you know how many solar developers there are out there?

Business is done by ENTREPRENEURS. You may have a point back in the 60s that Exxon had enough power and resources to suppress new technology that could threaten the oil infrastructure, but it's the 21st century. Shit like that is nearly impossible. Too much FREE flow of capital and information.

Now if the top scientists mysteriously are dying from accidents, then you'd have some ground, but it's ridiculous to say Bell Labs shut down one of their many R&D departments...for what, a conspiracy to stop new technology?

Of course there is no conspiracy. The research ended because business is not worried about long term profits. Again they are looking to make next quarters expectations. Research is a loss in the short term, and short term gain is what it's all about.

That is precisely why Bell dumped it's programs. Now precisely how does that philosphy benefit new energy R&D?

Know what the biggest ticket item for pharma used to be? Research.
Know what it is now? Advertising.

Why? Because advertising sells, not research.

Wait, what? Pharma research has been skyrocketing over the past 15 years.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/h...es/Iglehart_Slides.pdf

This has happened despite the lowered return of drug research dollars and the fact that fewer drugs are being approved.

 

[Dufusyte]

There already exist new ways to tap into powerful forms of energy. These are currently kept secret because:

- They are relatively easy to build, and very powerful, thus it would greatly empower people, including dangerous people
- The current economy of the world is based on fossil fuels, and those who sit at the top of the current economy would be dislocated from their position if the current fossil fuel economy passed away