Interesting article in Science

[Royd]

Quote:
They are failing, as a whole, across the country. Obviously, a very expensive boondoggle, in trying to change the energy concepts of this country.

Why are they failing? Is it poor science? Poor business model? A concept that society isn't ready for? Too expensive for current environment? There's too many unknowns for me to draw the conclusion that solar power, as a concept, is flawed.

Well, that's what the government was trying to do. They knew that the numbers didn't work, but if we could only destroy coal, gas and oil, and force the price of it through the roof, people would gladly pay outrageous prices for something less effective, just to have lights and heat and that wonderful green utopia feeling.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
Why are they failing? Is it poor science? Poor business model? A concept that society isn't ready for? Too expensive for current environment? There's too many unknowns for me to draw the conclusion that solar power, as a concept, is flawed.

Well, that's what the government was trying to do. They knew that the numbers didn't work, but if we could only destroy coal, gas and oil, and force the price of it through the roof, people would gladly pay outrageous prices for something less effective, just to have lights and heat and that wonderful green utopia feeling.

You're taking this back to a political discussion. I'm only interested in the science. Show me the studies that demonstrate that the concept doesn't work.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
Well, that's what the government was trying to do. They knew that the numbers didn't work, but if we could only destroy coal, gas and oil, and force the price of it through the roof, people would gladly pay outrageous prices for something less effective, just to have lights and heat and that wonderful green utopia feeling.

You're taking this back to a political discussion. I'm only interested in the science. Show me the studies that demonstrate that the concept doesn't work.

Why don't you buy a system and have it put on your roof? I'm sure, as a concept, it'll work just fine, in the state of Washington. Somehow, I don't think it takes a lot of research to know that solar is not a top priority in sunny Seattle.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
I wasn't asking for a political spin. Do you have any links to Solyndra's research that shows that they've drawn incorrect conclusions or had flawed data?

It failed, after a huge influx of public money.....It's a flawed concept. No political spin needed. Hydroelectric works, solar doesn't.....At least, not on my dime. If some venture capitalist wants to front his money to someone in a garage, and he finds the holy grail of solar electric, then, I'll root for him.

I don't need to post links on the subject to win the argument.

Actually, yes you do. "Because I said so" doesn't always work on people after they grow out of childhood.

Sigmund Freud's ideas about development did not follow the scientific process completely -- his ideas were not testable or falsifiable as he presented them. He proposed hypotheses, which were accepted at the time as models which worked to varying degrees. Later, Behaviorism sought to dismiss anything that couldn't be tested, and Cognitive Psych emerged from measuring reaction times in controlled studies. If you quote something Freud said that wasn't based on evidence, and that was later refuted because of evidence, then your citation would be considered invalid. Thus the process of peer review, which (based on the responses here) applies a level of understanding and knowledge that is more advanced than had by most people. Ideas that survive the onslaught from researchers' attacks are more valid than those which don't. That same process isn't applied to "I heard a guy say....."

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
You're taking this back to a political discussion. I'm only interested in the science. Show me the studies that demonstrate that the concept doesn't work.

Why don't you buy a system and have it put on your roof? I'm sure, as a concept, it'll work just fine, in the state of Washington. Somehow, I don't think it takes a lot of research to know that solar is not a top priority in sunny Seattle.

Solar does work in Seattle.

http://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/Solar-power-a-harder-sell-in-Seattle-1840996.php

The difference here is that our hydro power is so cheap that it makes solar comparatively too expensive. I believe the science is sound, and you haven't provided me with evidence otherwise.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
You do realize that nowhere in your wikipedia reference does it say "it happens a lot." It simply defines the term, and offers explanations and categories of the term. However, I did find this:

"Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity, indicate some form of scientific misconduct. (Source: Wired Magazine, March 2004) However the ORI will only investigate allegations of impropriety where research was funded by federal grants. They routinely monitor such research publication for red flags."

That would indicate two things -- 1) that misconduct is relatively uncommon ("some form" reported by 3%...which doesn't mean ALL of the research by that 3%, but just SOME from that 3%), and 2) federally-funded research is routinely monitored. Additionally, research that is repeated with similar results by unrelated parties further adds confidence to the findings.

Very little research can uncover "proof" but rather, like grains of sand on a balance scale, accumulate to tip in the direction of truth. One isolated study has much less weight than a heap of studies that confirm each other. This is the process of "knowing" that is adopted by science. It works better than the emotive process of "knowing" -- it's not perfect, but it has a much higher rate of success. You may choose to adopt whichever method of "knowing" you wish, but the predictive ability of the scientific method surpasses that of emotive "knowing."

 

[faerielady]

Quote:
Wikipedia is never a valid source. Just TRY to cite that in a research paper...

 

[AquaEyes]

Oh, and a final thought, for those who so easily dismiss science and the scientific process -- "the guy next door" didn't develop the computers and the internet that allow you to even have this discussion. They were the culmination of scientific advances, not emotive "knowing."

 

[Royd]

Quote:
Why don't you buy a system and have it put on your roof? I'm sure, as a concept, it'll work just fine, in the state of Washington. Somehow, I don't think it takes a lot of research to know that solar is not a top priority in sunny Seattle.

Solar does work in Seattle.

http://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/Solar-power-a-harder-sell-in-Seattle-1840996.php

The difference here is that our hydro power is so cheap that it makes solar comparatively too expensive. I believe the science is sound, and you haven't provided me with evidence otherwise.

Wait a minute. All of this talk about providing evidence, and you say, "I believe the science is sound." I can use a magnifying glass and heat water to boiling. The science is sound but the application is not practical. The problem which I have, is using science to push an agenda, which will not, in and of itself, prosper.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
At the end of the day, we had something in our hands, which worked, and most of the money used in that science came from the private sector. The government didn't demand that we all learn to play Pacman, in order to make computers viable.