End Green Energy Subsidies Now!

[bripat9643]

Nuclear Power is actually green

I'd subsidize it in a heartbeat

Until there's an earthquake......then it's just radioactive.

Old technology.

France is building them as fast as they can, Germany' dumping them.

The average Frenchman now creates 5 tons of carbon, the average German double that.

It's a win/win. The right gets plentiful energy at a cheap rate, the left get energy independence that doesn't add to global warming.

What's not to love?

Fukushima.

Old technology.

Do you still use AOL on dial up?

New reactor technology does nothing to guarantee there won't be a catastrophic accident resulting from a natural disaster like an earthquake.

Yes it does, you ******* numskull. Why don't you read the article?

 

[bripat9643]

We can do better than fossil fuels or nuclear, it's just a matter of how much money and resources we want to devote into developing it. Green energy has doubled in efficiency on average every five years and shows every indication of evolving even faster in the future. Fossil fuels and nuclear have no such potential.

I doubt your claims about green energy are true. Prove it has doubled in efficiency every 5 years.

 

[Flopper]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Green energy was 88 billion. I say get rid of all of them.

 

[westwall]

You may be advocating fuel cells, Walleyes, but the market seems to be advocating batteries at present.

Only thanks to massive government support. Take that away, and the taxpayer money that somehow always seems to find its way into the pockets of the super rich you claim to hate. Toyota did the fuel cell thing all on its own. They couldn't find a decent hydrogen tank maker so they build their own which caused the price to plummet. Now others will be able to purchase those tanks from them and the whole market will increase thanks to that fact.

Batteries are old hat olfraud. They've been around for well over a century and are at the limits of their performance absent a paradigm level breakthrough.

You're just pissed that a private company did the work.

The problem with Fuel Cells is th infrasturcture to deliver will take decades to roll out... The making of and transporting Hydrogen looks to have serious implications. Battery technology looks good for inside a decde at the moment.
I not abandoning Fuel Cell as its need in aircraft later on is needed, I would say that Batteries looks better as we presently stand.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

News Detail

The technology is currently being licensed by a company for eventual production. Prof Chen expects that the new generation of fast-charging batteries will hit the market in the next two years. It also has the potential to be a key solution in overcoming longstanding power issues related to electro-mobility.

Thats what they have done in Singapore, they take the lead...

Which doesn't address the fact that batteries are technologically nearly maxed out. If you invest heavily in battery technology you're screwed for the next big advance. Fuel Cell technology is in its infancy. It enjoys one huge advantage over batteries and that is it doesn't require toxic substances to manufacture it, nor are the byproducts toxic when they wear out.

As I keep stating, batteries are cute but they're OLD technology.

I am not against Fuel Cells, I think that they will be vital in the Medium (30 year outlook). I just think that Battery Tech in the next 5 years...

In truth we are like two lads looking at the same race backing two different horses, I don't think your horse is bad.
There is no certainty but I think if the battery makes a relatively small jump the infrastructure is there. We know how to make and distribute electricity.

Saying that if I am wrong a fuel cell is they way, I am just as happy... Saying that if I am wrong move to Iceland, endless amount of energy if harnessed and only 250k people.

Based on how fast Toyota was able to drop the price of a fuel cell hydrogen tank (95% drop in 5 years) I think you're not keeping up with the advances that are being made. And yes, we do know how to make and distribute electricity. However, conservative estimates are that at least 170-200 new power plants would need to be built to power the EV's. And that is off peak hours charging. I shudder to think how many would need to be built if it were during peak usage.

westwall,

Lets look at this:
Fuel Cell
How do we produce the Hydrogen?
If we can produce Hydrogen energy easily why not burn it for electricity?

EV
And also the length needed for these need batteries hitting the market in 2.5 years will give 70% charge in 2 mins, from home.

The average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,837 kWh.

Average Mileage of USA: 13,476
EV use about .3 Kwh per mile(MiniE is small car).

That is 4,042 kwh per year

So we are talking about 50% increase of electricity over a ten year period. 200 new stations seems right as redundant capcity at night could be used.

Source:
"That said, let's do a little math. In Portland, Ore., where electric cars are gaining ground and the local utilityis providing charging infrastructure, electricity runs about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). The new Mini E, which is still in field trials, uses .22 kWh per mile, which translates to 22 kWh for 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) of driving. And in Portland, 22 kWh will cost $1.32."
How Much Does It Cost to Charge an Electric Car - HowStuffWorks

If the batteries perform as advertised that would be a good thing. So far though no battery has performed anywhere near expectations.

 

[westwall]

You may be advocating fuel cells, Walleyes, but the market seems to be advocating batteries at present.

Only thanks to massive government support. Take that away, and the taxpayer money that somehow always seems to find its way into the pockets of the super rich you claim to hate. Toyota did the fuel cell thing all on its own. They couldn't find a decent hydrogen tank maker so they build their own which caused the price to plummet. Now others will be able to purchase those tanks from them and the whole market will increase thanks to that fact.

Batteries are old hat olfraud. They've been around for well over a century and are at the limits of their performance absent a paradigm level breakthrough.

You're just pissed that a private company did the work.

The problem with Fuel Cells is th infrasturcture to deliver will take decades to roll out... The making of and transporting Hydrogen looks to have serious implications. Battery technology looks good for inside a decde at the moment.
I not abandoning Fuel Cell as its need in aircraft later on is needed, I would say that Batteries looks better as we presently stand.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

Batteries at their limits now? Do you ever feel stupid having to just make shit up as you go along? You should.

Yes, they are pretty damned close to theoretical maximum. There have been at least two "new" battery techs that have been mentioned in the last 5 years that have so far gone nowhere.

 

[westwall]

Sakti3 battery, 1/5 the cost, double the energy density. Google it, very interesting. And that is hardly the only new battery in the works. As usual, ol' Walleyes is full of shit. Batteries are nowhere near the limits of energy density.

Grid scale batteries are now in the works, and ONCOR, the biggest utility in Texas is planning, starting in 2018, to put in 5000 megawatts of these batteries on it's grid. By that time, solar will cost less than dirty coal, as does wind right now.

Yes, there is going to be some paradigm shifts in energy production and storage in the coming decade.

And so far they are still in development and nowhere near production. You just reinforced what I've been saying. Thank you.

 

[westwall]

Only thanks to massive government support. Take that away, and the taxpayer money that somehow always seems to find its way into the pockets of the super rich you claim to hate. Toyota did the fuel cell thing all on its own. They couldn't find a decent hydrogen tank maker so they build their own which caused the price to plummet. Now others will be able to purchase those tanks from them and the whole market will increase thanks to that fact.

Batteries are old hat olfraud. They've been around for well over a century and are at the limits of their performance absent a paradigm level breakthrough.

You're just pissed that a private company did the work.

The problem with Fuel Cells is th infrasturcture to deliver will take decades to roll out... The making of and transporting Hydrogen looks to have serious implications. Battery technology looks good for inside a decde at the moment.
I not abandoning Fuel Cell as its need in aircraft later on is needed, I would say that Batteries looks better as we presently stand.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

News Detail

The technology is currently being licensed by a company for eventual production. Prof Chen expects that the new generation of fast-charging batteries will hit the market in the next two years. It also has the potential to be a key solution in overcoming longstanding power issues related to electro-mobility.

Thats what they have done in Singapore, they take the lead...

Which doesn't address the fact that batteries are technologically nearly maxed out. If you invest heavily in battery technology you're screwed for the next big advance. Fuel Cell technology is in its infancy. It enjoys one huge advantage over batteries and that is it doesn't require toxic substances to manufacture it, nor are the byproducts toxic when they wear out.

As I keep stating, batteries are cute but they're OLD technology.

You can state it all you want but you're still wrong and stupid. All kinds of new battery innovations happening right now, including manufacturing batteries using entirely non strategic metals. Why don't you know these things? Is it ignorance or dishonesty?
Stanford and SLAC Join New Battery Research Partnership Precourt Institute for Energy

I do know these things. When are they planning on having them available for sale at Batteries Plus?

 

[Politico]

Sorry you confused me with someone who gives a shit either way. I just verified your position. The rest of the argument is for you to make with someone else.

Translation: I'm runnign away because I've proven wrong and can't fight back.
Yeah, we know. Poor thing.

No I just really don't care about your definition of or whether there are subsidies. The only issue I was interested in was to get you to clarify the position you refused to over and over. I did that.

You are arguing with a signpost, Rabbi. To Progs, anything deducted from gross receipts before tax is a "subsidy."

I am not a progressive dolt.

 

[bripat9643]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Green energy was 88 billion. I say get rid of all of them.

Those figures are totally fabricated bullshit. The so-called "subsidies" include stuff like energy vouchers so old people won't freeze in the dark.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry you confused me with someone who gives a shit either way. I just verified your position. The rest of the argument is for you to make with someone else.

Translation: I'm runnign away because I've proven wrong and can't fight back.
Yeah, we know. Poor thing.

No I just really don't care about your definition of or whether there are subsidies. The only issue I was interested in was to get you to clarify the position you refused to over and over. I did that.

Yeah, we know progressives don't care about how words are defined. They have their own special definitions that allow them to lie.

You are arguing with a signpost, Rabbi. To Progs, anything deducted from gross receipts before tax is a "subsidy."

I am not a progressive dolt.

Walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

 

[Politico]

Yeah missed the part where progressives would like everything subsidized derp. You might want to get some reading comprehension skills.

 

[CowboyTed]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Green energy was 88 billion. I say get rid of all of them.

Those figures are totally fabricated bullshit. The so-called "subsidies" include stuff like energy vouchers so old people won't freeze in the dark.

The energy vouchers is something moderates would agree on. But they are also saying money has to be invested in alternative energy sources.
We are saying if you want to compare Coal v alternative energy, you have to compare like with like... At the moment Coal costs $185bn in Health costs. That is not charged back to the Coal industry and thus levied as a tax on that industry. This would drastically increase the cost of coal and would make alternative energy sources very competitive.
Any moderate has to say that for the short to medium term coal has to be there but alternatives have to be developed.

Westwall and others are just discussing the best way to proceed, I am more pro Battery Tech and Westwall is Fuel Cell. But I would hope both of us would agree that putting your eggs in one basket on such a large benefit if either was wrong would not be prudent. Both of us could be wrong and nuclear fission might make a great leap...
But I think both of us would respect that R & D needs to be spent on this even if the risk of bringing it to market in early stages has to borne by the government, because it is taxpayers money which is paying the $185bn a year of Coal pollution.
The same applies to Oil, the hidden costs of oil dependency is crippling and if the money was used to find an alternative the US could get out of Middle East.
Arguing against funding of alternative energies (which include Nuclear) is playing into special interests/lobbyists in Washington hands.

 

[CowboyTed]

The problem with Fuel Cells is th infrasturcture to deliver will take decades to roll out... The making of and transporting Hydrogen looks to have serious implications. Battery technology looks good for inside a decde at the moment.
I not abandoning Fuel Cell as its need in aircraft later on is needed, I would say that Batteries looks better as we presently stand.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

News Detail

The technology is currently being licensed by a company for eventual production. Prof Chen expects that the new generation of fast-charging batteries will hit the market in the next two years. It also has the potential to be a key solution in overcoming longstanding power issues related to electro-mobility.

Thats what they have done in Singapore, they take the lead...

Which doesn't address the fact that batteries are technologically nearly maxed out. If you invest heavily in battery technology you're screwed for the next big advance. Fuel Cell technology is in its infancy. It enjoys one huge advantage over batteries and that is it doesn't require toxic substances to manufacture it, nor are the byproducts toxic when they wear out.

As I keep stating, batteries are cute but they're OLD technology.

You can state it all you want but you're still wrong and stupid. All kinds of new battery innovations happening right now, including manufacturing batteries using entirely non strategic metals. Why don't you know these things? Is it ignorance or dishonesty?
Stanford and SLAC Join New Battery Research Partnership Precourt Institute for Energy

I do know these things. When are they planning on having them available for sale at Batteries Plus?

Westwall,
The Fuel Cell R&D developed by Honda and Toyota was and is heavily subsidized by the Japan Government.
About JHFC Project - JHFC Japan Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project

Battery Tech is worth a good look at and all we are talking about is the ability to hold energy. To say that technology is dead is to discount a lot of alternatives which we haven't seen.

We are talking about R&D budgets and where they should go... A lot government investment goes into non market ready research which is then commercialized later on.

 

[Discombobulated]

You may be advocating fuel cells, Walleyes, but the market seems to be advocating batteries at present.

Only thanks to massive government support. Take that away, and the taxpayer money that somehow always seems to find its way into the pockets of the super rich you claim to hate. Toyota did the fuel cell thing all on its own. They couldn't find a decent hydrogen tank maker so they build their own which caused the price to plummet. Now others will be able to purchase those tanks from them and the whole market will increase thanks to that fact.

Batteries are old hat olfraud. They've been around for well over a century and are at the limits of their performance absent a paradigm level breakthrough.

You're just pissed that a private company did the work.

The problem with Fuel Cells is th infrasturcture to deliver will take decades to roll out... The making of and transporting Hydrogen looks to have serious implications. Battery technology looks good for inside a decde at the moment.
I not abandoning Fuel Cell as its need in aircraft later on is needed, I would say that Batteries looks better as we presently stand.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

Batteries at their limits now? Do you ever feel stupid having to just make shit up as you go along? You should.

Yes, they are pretty damned close to theoretical maximum. There have been at least two "new" battery techs that have been mentioned in the last 5 years that have so far gone nowhere.

Thank you for your completely uninformed opinion on battery technology.

 

[westwall]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Green energy was 88 billion. I say get rid of all of them.

Those figures are totally fabricated bullshit. The so-called "subsidies" include stuff like energy vouchers so old people won't freeze in the dark.

The energy vouchers is something moderates would agree on. But they are also saying money has to be invested in alternative energy sources.
We are saying if you want to compare Coal v alternative energy, you have to compare like with like... At the moment Coal costs $185bn in Health costs. That is not charged back to the Coal industry and thus levied as a tax on that industry. This would drastically increase the cost of coal and would make alternative energy sources very competitive.
Any moderate has to say that for the short to medium term coal has to be there but alternatives have to be developed.

Westwall and others are just discussing the best way to proceed, I am more pro Battery Tech and Westwall is Fuel Cell. But I would hope both of us would agree that putting your eggs in one basket on such a large benefit if either was wrong would not be prudent. Both of us could be wrong and nuclear fission might make a great leap...
But I think both of us would respect that R & D needs to be spent on this even if the risk of bringing it to market in early stages has to borne by the government, because it is taxpayers money which is paying the $185bn a year of Coal pollution.
The same applies to Oil, the hidden costs of oil dependency is crippling and if the money was used to find an alternative the US could get out of Middle East.
Arguing against funding of alternative energies (which include Nuclear) is playing into special interests/lobbyists in Washington hands.

I am in complete agreement with this post. R&D needs to be continued on any system that has a chance to take us off of fossil fuels. I am against fossil fuels for transport uses simply because there are so many other, better, uses for petroleum as an example. It is a shame that we burn so much of that valuable commodity up to power our vehicles.

 

[westwall]

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

News Detail

The technology is currently being licensed by a company for eventual production. Prof Chen expects that the new generation of fast-charging batteries will hit the market in the next two years. It also has the potential to be a key solution in overcoming longstanding power issues related to electro-mobility.

Thats what they have done in Singapore, they take the lead...

Which doesn't address the fact that batteries are technologically nearly maxed out. If you invest heavily in battery technology you're screwed for the next big advance. Fuel Cell technology is in its infancy. It enjoys one huge advantage over batteries and that is it doesn't require toxic substances to manufacture it, nor are the byproducts toxic when they wear out.

As I keep stating, batteries are cute but they're OLD technology.

You can state it all you want but you're still wrong and stupid. All kinds of new battery innovations happening right now, including manufacturing batteries using entirely non strategic metals. Why don't you know these things? Is it ignorance or dishonesty?
Stanford and SLAC Join New Battery Research Partnership Precourt Institute for Energy

I do know these things. When are they planning on having them available for sale at Batteries Plus?

Westwall,
The Fuel Cell R&D developed by Honda and Toyota was and is heavily subsidized by the Japan Government.
About JHFC Project - JHFC Japan Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project

Battery Tech is worth a good look at and all we are talking about is the ability to hold energy. To say that technology is dead is to discount a lot of alternatives which we haven't seen.

We are talking about R&D budgets and where they should go... A lot government investment goes into non market ready research which is then commercialized later on.

Yes, virtually all R&D budgets include a healthy dose of taxpayer monies. I would like to see that stop to be honest. So long as they can fall back on the taxpayer they can be wasteful. Wastefulness needs to brought under control. Failure must have consequences.

 

[westwall]

Only thanks to massive government support. Take that away, and the taxpayer money that somehow always seems to find its way into the pockets of the super rich you claim to hate. Toyota did the fuel cell thing all on its own. They couldn't find a decent hydrogen tank maker so they build their own which caused the price to plummet. Now others will be able to purchase those tanks from them and the whole market will increase thanks to that fact.

Batteries are old hat olfraud. They've been around for well over a century and are at the limits of their performance absent a paradigm level breakthrough.

You're just pissed that a private company did the work.

The problem with Fuel Cells is th infrasturcture to deliver will take decades to roll out... The making of and transporting Hydrogen looks to have serious implications. Battery technology looks good for inside a decde at the moment.
I not abandoning Fuel Cell as its need in aircraft later on is needed, I would say that Batteries looks better as we presently stand.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

Batteries at their limits now? Do you ever feel stupid having to just make shit up as you go along? You should.

Yes, they are pretty damned close to theoretical maximum. There have been at least two "new" battery techs that have been mentioned in the last 5 years that have so far gone nowhere.

Thank you for your completely uninformed opinion on battery technology.

You're welcome. Let me know when you have anything useful to say.

 

[CowboyTed]

News Detail

The technology is currently being licensed by a company for eventual production. Prof Chen expects that the new generation of fast-charging batteries will hit the market in the next two years. It also has the potential to be a key solution in overcoming longstanding power issues related to electro-mobility.

Thats what they have done in Singapore, they take the lead...

Which doesn't address the fact that batteries are technologically nearly maxed out. If you invest heavily in battery technology you're screwed for the next big advance. Fuel Cell technology is in its infancy. It enjoys one huge advantage over batteries and that is it doesn't require toxic substances to manufacture it, nor are the byproducts toxic when they wear out.

As I keep stating, batteries are cute but they're OLD technology.

You can state it all you want but you're still wrong and stupid. All kinds of new battery innovations happening right now, including manufacturing batteries using entirely non strategic metals. Why don't you know these things? Is it ignorance or dishonesty?
Stanford and SLAC Join New Battery Research Partnership Precourt Institute for Energy

I do know these things. When are they planning on having them available for sale at Batteries Plus?

Westwall,
The Fuel Cell R&D developed by Honda and Toyota was and is heavily subsidized by the Japan Government.
About JHFC Project - JHFC Japan Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project

Battery Tech is worth a good look at and all we are talking about is the ability to hold energy. To say that technology is dead is to discount a lot of alternatives which we haven't seen.

We are talking about R&D budgets and where they should go... A lot government investment goes into non market ready research which is then commercialized later on.

Yes, virtually all R&D budgets include a healthy dose of taxpayer monies. I would like to see that stop to be honest. So long as they can fall back on the taxpayer they can be wasteful. Wastefulness needs to brought under control. Failure must have consequences.

Westwall,

Taxpayers are paying for a lot of the Coal Pollution health costs and Taxpayers paid for the misadventure in Iraq to secure Middle East Oil reserves.
Japan paid for technology to not need either. So Fuel Cell technology is based on Japan's Taxpayer money.
It makes more sense to invest relatively pennies on the dollar to try stop paying these huge bills in future.
I could go through the extensive list of technology advancements made on tax payer grants which have benefited society as a whole. The Marketplace does not have all the answers just some of them.
If America stopped investing in new technologies they will cripple the US economy over time. The US has got where it got by being smart and investing in areas which normal companies could not take on the risk as they are too far from the market place to commercialise.

 

[Discombobulated]

The problem with Fuel Cells is th infrasturcture to deliver will take decades to roll out... The making of and transporting Hydrogen looks to have serious implications. Battery technology looks good for inside a decde at the moment.
I not abandoning Fuel Cell as its need in aircraft later on is needed, I would say that Batteries looks better as we presently stand.

Batteries are at their limits now. Hydrogen can be rolled out very fast in comparative terms, and it doesn't require the wholesale rebuilding of the Grid which would be necessary if the nation were too switch over to EV's. There simply is nowhere near enough energy produced to power them. And by a fantastic amount. The shortfall is gigantic and no amount of green energy systems can supply the need. A home system requires over a month to recharge a electric car. That's a fact that kills them IMO.

Batteries at their limits now? Do you ever feel stupid having to just make shit up as you go along? You should.

Yes, they are pretty damned close to theoretical maximum. There have been at least two "new" battery techs that have been mentioned in the last 5 years that have so far gone nowhere.

Thank you for your completely uninformed opinion on battery technology.

You're welcome. Let me know when you have anything useful to say.

It's always useful when you back up your opinions with more opinions.

 

[kaz]

Which doesn't address the fact that batteries are technologically nearly maxed out. If you invest heavily in battery technology you're screwed for the next big advance. Fuel Cell technology is in its infancy. It enjoys one huge advantage over batteries and that is it doesn't require toxic substances to manufacture it, nor are the byproducts toxic when they wear out.

As I keep stating, batteries are cute but they're OLD technology.

You can state it all you want but you're still wrong and stupid. All kinds of new battery innovations happening right now, including manufacturing batteries using entirely non strategic metals. Why don't you know these things? Is it ignorance or dishonesty?
Stanford and SLAC Join New Battery Research Partnership Precourt Institute for Energy

I do know these things. When are they planning on having them available for sale at Batteries Plus?

Westwall,
The Fuel Cell R&D developed by Honda and Toyota was and is heavily subsidized by the Japan Government.
About JHFC Project - JHFC Japan Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project

Battery Tech is worth a good look at and all we are talking about is the ability to hold energy. To say that technology is dead is to discount a lot of alternatives which we haven't seen.

We are talking about R&D budgets and where they should go... A lot government investment goes into non market ready research which is then commercialized later on.

Yes, virtually all R&D budgets include a healthy dose of taxpayer monies. I would like to see that stop to be honest. So long as they can fall back on the taxpayer they can be wasteful. Wastefulness needs to brought under control. Failure must have consequences.

Westwall,

Taxpayers are paying for a lot of the Coal Pollution health costs and Taxpayers paid for the misadventure in Iraq to secure Middle East Oil reserves.
Japan paid for technology to not need either. So Fuel Cell technology is based on Japan's Taxpayer money.
It makes more sense to invest relatively pennies on the dollar to try stop paying these huge bills in future.
I could go through the extensive list of technology advancements made on tax payer grants which have benefited society as a whole. The Marketplace does not have all the answers just some of them.
If America stopped investing in new technologies they will cripple the US economy over time. The US has got where it got by being smart and investing in areas which normal companies could not take on the risk as they are too far from the market place to commercialise.

The US got where it is by government spending on technologies, not by industry investing in commercially viable technologies. And if government stopped taxing and funding on what politicians want, not what is economically viable, then that would cripple our economy.

Wow, all roads lead to Marxism, even when they don't. That's just sad. Government schools have failed you, badly, my friend.