Green Technology: What WILL Happen

[Decus]

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.

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....

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.

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]

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]

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....

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.

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.

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]

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.

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....

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.

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]

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.

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....

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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."

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]

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."

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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....

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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....

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.

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%.