Interesting article in Science

[AquaEyes]

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.

So....you're saying the government is demanding that we all put solar panels on our roofs? No? Then it's not a valid comparison.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
I'm not trying to convince you to share my opinion, nor am I making any comment on the appropriate use of any technology. I'm not interested in agendas, or political commentary. I'm interested in people discussing science and the validity and applications of it. It's unclear to me how you went from an article in a science blog to commenting on the use of public money funding a solar power company and I'm just trying to figure out the common thread.

So, back to the science, which is the only commonality I can find, I would be interested in seeing any research you can provide which can either prove, or disprove, the validity of generating electricity from solar power.

If your goal was to make some other comment on either science or birds, please clarify that for me.

 

[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.

So....you're saying the government is demanding that we all put solar panels on our roofs? No? Then it's not a valid comparison.

Trying to destroy the petroleum industry through heavy handed regulatons, in order to force up the price of just staying alive, so that you will gladly buy into the alternative, just to live a comfortable life, is exactly what is happening. We now have cars, which get 40 miles per charge, and they are touted as high tech. You can get a govt. refund of several thousand dollars, to push an unsustainable agenda. It all feels good, until you have to drive 41 miles. Get back to me, when it gets 400 miles per charge, takes 10 minutes to recharge, and doesn't cost $10,000 to replace the battery bank in 5 years.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
So....you're saying the government is demanding that we all put solar panels on our roofs? No? Then it's not a valid comparison.

Trying to destroy the petroleum industry through heavy handed regulatons, in order to force up the price of just staying alive, so that you will gladly buy into the alternative, just to live a comfortable life, is exactly what is happening. We now have cars, which get 40 miles per charge, and they are touted as high tech. You can get a govt. refund of several thousand dollars, to push an unsustainable agenda. It all feels good, until you have to drive 41 miles. Get back to me, when it gets 400 miles per charge, takes 10 minutes to recharge, and doesn't cost $10,000 to replace the battery bank in 5 years.

hmmm.....I thought the point of exploring alternative energy science was the reality that petroleum, and all fossil fuel, is a finite resource and will soon not even be an option.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
So....you're saying the government is demanding that we all put solar panels on our roofs? No? Then it's not a valid comparison.

Trying to destroy the petroleum industry through heavy handed regulatons, in order to force up the price of just staying alive, so that you will gladly buy into the alternative, just to live a comfortable life, is exactly what is happening. We now have cars, which get 40 miles per charge, and they are touted as high tech. You can get a govt. refund of several thousand dollars, to push an unsustainable agenda. It all feels good, until you have to drive 41 miles. Get back to me, when it gets 400 miles per charge, takes 10 minutes to recharge, and doesn't cost $10,000 to replace the battery bank in 5 years.

It seems that the government applying incentives to innovate alternate means of propulsion for automobiles is encouraging innovation BEFORE it's needed (i.e. when finite oil supplies run out, or become diminished in output to the point that the cost is outside economic viability) is really a means of solving a future problem in advance. I'd rather begin preparing for the inevitable NOW rather than scrambling when it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. But, then again, I'm a fan of science, and apparently you're not.

http://jalopnik.com/5129433/byd-e6-250-miles-per-charge-electric-car

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/05/la-ev-charging-stations.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20050501-1.html

http://grassrootsev.com/100club.htm

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thi...harge-electric-car-only-a-few-years-away/7270

http://www.worldculturepictorial.co...-build-manufacturing-plant-headquarters-silic

http://gas2.org/2009/01/03/boring-electric-car-gets-100-miles-per-charge-goes-85-mph-still-due-2010/

http://www.blacklistednews.com/115-...r_Charge_as_Chevy_Volt/16147/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Take note of the last link. If technology continued to advance down the electric-car path back then, we'd likely be even further ahead today.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
Trying to destroy the petroleum industry through heavy handed regulatons, in order to force up the price of just staying alive, so that you will gladly buy into the alternative, just to live a comfortable life, is exactly what is happening. We now have cars, which get 40 miles per charge, and they are touted as high tech. You can get a govt. refund of several thousand dollars, to push an unsustainable agenda. It all feels good, until you have to drive 41 miles. Get back to me, when it gets 400 miles per charge, takes 10 minutes to recharge, and doesn't cost $10,000 to replace the battery bank in 5 years.

It seems that the government applying incentives to innovate alternate means of propulsion for automobiles is encouraging innovation BEFORE it's needed (i.e. when finite oil supplies run out, or become diminished in output to the point that the cost is outside economic viability) is really a means of solving a future problem in advance. I'd rather begin preparing for the inevitable NOW rather than scrambling when it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. But, then again, I'm a fan of science, and apparently you're not.

http://jalopnik.com/5129433/byd-e6-250-miles-per-charge-electric-car

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/05/la-ev-charging-stations.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20050501-1.html

http://grassrootsev.com/100club.htm

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thi...harge-electric-car-only-a-few-years-away/7270

http://www.worldculturepictorial.co...-build-manufacturing-plant-headquarters-silic

http://gas2.org/2009/01/03/boring-electric-car-gets-100-miles-per-charge-goes-85-mph-still-due-2010/

http://www.blacklistednews.com/115-...r_Charge_as_Chevy_Volt/16147/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Take note of the last link. If technology continued to advance down the electric-car path back then, we'd likely be even further ahead today.

I saw that on Drudge about a week ago. All the advances in technology, and they can't get past 115 year old technology. That's how I see it. Batteries simply have limited life and limited charge... The technology has advanced to the point that they deliver a full charge up to the point of collapse.

I'm just not a handwringer about "Fossil fuel", because I believe that the earth is still producing carbon based products, continually. Just like it is producing diamonds, gold, iron, etc. Far better to use the supplies which are available, while preparing for other possibilities.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
It seems that the government applying incentives to innovate alternate means of propulsion for automobiles is encouraging innovation BEFORE it's needed (i.e. when finite oil supplies run out, or become diminished in output to the point that the cost is outside economic viability) is really a means of solving a future problem in advance. I'd rather begin preparing for the inevitable NOW rather than scrambling when it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. But, then again, I'm a fan of science, and apparently you're not.

http://jalopnik.com/5129433/byd-e6-250-miles-per-charge-electric-car

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/05/la-ev-charging-stations.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20050501-1.html

http://grassrootsev.com/100club.htm

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thi...harge-electric-car-only-a-few-years-away/7270

http://www.worldculturepictorial.co...-build-manufacturing-plant-headquarters-silic

http://gas2.org/2009/01/03/boring-electric-car-gets-100-miles-per-charge-goes-85-mph-still-due-2010/

http://www.blacklistednews.com/115-...r_Charge_as_Chevy_Volt/16147/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Take note of the last link. If technology continued to advance down the electric-car path back then, we'd likely be even further ahead today.

I saw that on Drudge about a week ago. All the advances in technology, and they can't get past 115 year old technology. That's how I see it. Batteries simply have limited life and limited charge... The technology has advanced to the point that they deliver a full charge up to the point of collapse.

I'm just not a handwringer about "Fossil fuel", because I believe that the earth is still producing carbon based products, continually. Just like it is producing diamonds, gold, iron, etc. Far better to use the supplies which are available, while preparing for other possibilities.

The advances didn't continue because the advancement stopped....and then restarted again. And if you read more carefully, you'd find that they most certainly DID "get past 115 year old technology" -- there are cars that outperform it, and even those with the same distance range can reach higher speeds. I posted the old car to show that, had interest in electric cars continued THEN, we'd be farther ahead NOW....though we already are ahead NOW compared to THEN in terms of ability. Availability is another matter.

You may "believe" that fossil fuels are continuing to be produced at a sustainable rate, but until you provide "evidence" then I will simply dismiss your claim with the same amount of evidence you provide -- none.

The earth is not "producing" gold or iron -- what we have is what we have. We might "find more" but the earth isn't "producing more" because they are elemental. Diamonds are a particular configuration of carbon as a result of heat and pressure, and yes, more are being produced at a rate for consumption -- in labs (oooh, by science...ssshhh) in controlled high-energy conditions. For them to be produced in nature will take much longer, or an incredible amount of energy released in a small area -- something that doesn't happen to the required degree frequently enough to replenish the supply of diamonds at the rate they are being removed from the earth.

The same idea applies to fossil fuels -- the rate of production is vastly dwarfed by the rate of extraction. Creating an energy policy based on such a "belief" which is contradicted by "evidence" is a modern application of Lysenkoism (resulting in catastrophic failure, but perhaps without all the "magic" of Soviet totalitarianism). Thankfully, you do not determine public policy.

 

[pdbantam]

I think they're just mad cause people call them "boobies"!

 

[chrislemurs]

interesting thanks

 

[cupman]

science just gives me the heebie jeebies.