We're the aliens in Independence Day! We're the monsters!
Alternative =/= renewable =/= clean
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
We have met the enemy, and it is us. And Lego blocks we accidentally step on. Also Mosquitos.
GasBandit
Staff member
"Big oil" is actually heavily invested in investigating every possible avenue of energy generation, including wind, solar, hydro, geo, whatever. See, the rub of the problem is we have an insatiable hunger for energy, whatever the source, that supply just can't keep up with demand. It was something like 15 short years ago I was paying 90 cents a gallon for gasoline. We're producing more oil than ever before, but with the ascendance of places like China and India into the first world, prices will continue to skyrocket for it. If there's any way to turn any conceivable source of energy into a profitable enterprise, you can bet "big oil" is investigating the hell out of it.
20 years ago there was no feasable way to make oil shale affordable at all. I'd say it's a whole lot more conceivable to find clean ways to exploit it than it is to power the nation on solyndra boondoggles.
Lets not be stupid and bring up Solyndra. The nation had a better success rate than Bain Capital.
But lets not turn this into a moronic talking point and get back to the oil shale being affordable. It's affordable due to the rise in the barrel of oil, not because they developed technology to make it easier to get. Also, they aren't doing it in a way that is safe. What you call 'clean', I call problematic.
Saying it is clean doesn't make it so.
By the way, ask Youngstown how fracking is working out for them.
GasBandit
Staff member
I didn't say it was clean, I said it was more feasible that advances could be made, finding ways to make it cleaner, than it is to think we're anywhere even in the same galaxy as not needing coal or oil thanks to solar and wind, or that we can just throw money at the solyndras of the world and achieve an earth-friendly utopia.[DOUBLEPOST=1352910372][/DOUBLEPOST]
So what you're saying is we've perfected the weaponized earthquake?
Yes, throw money at. Like waiting for private business to innovate... oh wait, they don't innovate, there's no money in it. All private industry can do is improve upon other ideas when they become successful.
Funny how people forget that our innovations have largely come from government grants or programs when it suits their ideology.
Funny how people forget that our innovations have largely come from government grants or programs when it suits their ideology.
It's hard to understand your point with such a mixed level of sarcasm.
Innovation has come from garage tinkerers, from corporations, from universities, and from those who have used grants and public funding to power their research.
GasBandit
Staff member
That is just as selective a memory as you're accusing thereof.
My point is you keep whining about Solyndra, despite the fact that government grants/programs are responsible for some of the greatest breakthroughs in technology in the last 100 years. Even us communicating here wouldn't be possible without them.
Yeah, shit gets made in garages. Then what? Did they develop and sell their new innovations afterward on their own? Through business? No, most of the time through grants from government.
Yeah, shit gets made in garages. Then what? Did they develop and sell their new innovations afterward on their own? Through business? No, most of the time through grants from government.
GasBandit
Staff member
Gonna need some sources for that, because it does not jibe.
Are you kidding me? You are saying that the majority of successful businesses in the US are only there because the gov't gave them grants?
That's so far out of this world I don't even know where to begin to correct this misunderstanding. I can't even imagine how one could possibly come to this conclusion - well, maybe if one was an academic, and only believed that innovation can come from a university that works based on grants.
Welcome to the real world, where if you have an idea you get to pay for its development yourself, or if you can convince someone to invest.
Apple supposedly also started in a garage. Microsoft didn't start in a garage, but it was damn close. How many of the major automotive companies started because one guy had an idea and started building cars in his shed? I'm pretty sure that's how Mercedes-Benz started, and though they eventually failed, it's how Hudson Motor Co. and DeLorean got started as well, and also several of the European "track day" auto companies - and you can bet that the EU isn't handing out research grants to Ariel (makers of the Atom) and their ilk.
In fact, as Steinman put it so succinctly, the only time you go from conception of an idea directly to government grant is if you're a university or government research facility. Anyone else has to prove that they can operate the business on their own, usually for a period of 3 years, before they even qualify for government grants. I know, because I researched government grants as well as small business loans when I was considering starting a business a while back.
Microsoft didn't need to start in a garage. Bill Gates used to work for Apple (or knew someone who did, I forget which), stole the interface for the Macintosh and the idea of the mouse for Windows, then successfully fended off the lawsuits until he was number one. Then he bought the damn place.
Really, Microsoft isn't that great of an example of bootstrapiness. They only succeeded through theft.
I think you're kind of forgetting about DOS.
Plus, I believe it was Jobs working with Xerox that originally "stole" the GUI idea.
Correct. Microsoft was around longer than Windows has been around, starting as a very small company that produced, not even an OS, but a BASIC interpreter for Altair. It was Jobs and others that started with the GUI OS that has evolved into OS X, which they may or may not have stolen from Xerox.
The big technological breakthroughs are usually in universities, through grants and such, right? (In part because some of them go hand by hand with scientific breakthroughs) Then companies can take those breakthroughs to a market level.
EDIT:
A quick look at the history of the computer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer ) Shows equal parts of private and 'public' research (I'm counting universities as public research)
EDIT:
A quick look at the history of the computer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer ) Shows equal parts of private and 'public' research (I'm counting universities as public research)
Ok, majority was a poor choice. I concede that was overboard and distracted from what I wanted to discuss.
What I'm trying to address is private industry tends to rely on luck and those 'garage start ups'. The innovation gap prevents companies, whose sole purpose is profit, in investing in risky new technologies. It's great that in the 1939 those guys took a chance and started a business in their garage. That's not really what I believe is the norm. People in their basements aren't making new innovations at the pace with which they did back in the last century. TED talks has helped a lot in this regard, though.
But as I said, today, companies don't create new products because the odds of making a profit are slim. If they aren't going to do it, then Government has to step in.
I would much rather have my tax dollars going to new innovations and energy (yes, even if there are failures). At least the risk is being taken.
As for these industries being 'unicorn farts', remember there was a time when people thought we couldn't fly, go to the moon, or destroy an entire city with just one bomb. It's only impossible because you make it so.
What I'm trying to address is private industry tends to rely on luck and those 'garage start ups'. The innovation gap prevents companies, whose sole purpose is profit, in investing in risky new technologies. It's great that in the 1939 those guys took a chance and started a business in their garage. That's not really what I believe is the norm. People in their basements aren't making new innovations at the pace with which they did back in the last century. TED talks has helped a lot in this regard, though.
But as I said, today, companies don't create new products because the odds of making a profit are slim. If they aren't going to do it, then Government has to step in.
I would much rather have my tax dollars going to new innovations and energy (yes, even if there are failures). At least the risk is being taken.
As for these industries being 'unicorn farts', remember there was a time when people thought we couldn't fly, go to the moon, or destroy an entire city with just one bomb. It's only impossible because you make it so.
Necronic
Staff member
The one thing you (krisken), and many other people, need to undrestand about science is that the process does not end with invention. In terms of cash-capital (if not brain-capital) that may be the cheapest part. Grants are responsible for foundational technologies in many fields. But they do NOTHING for scale-up.
And that's the expensive part. The amount of novel/groundbreaking sciences that, on paper, would revolutionize the world, but in reality ended up being duds is amazing. Corporations make large investments risking a LOT on these bits of novel tech to see if they can make something out of them.
And that's the expensive part. The amount of novel/groundbreaking sciences that, on paper, would revolutionize the world, but in reality ended up being duds is amazing. Corporations make large investments risking a LOT on these bits of novel tech to see if they can make something out of them.
Right, but that's what the "Innovation Gap" is about. Research--Development--Application. What universities are good at is research. Businesses are good at application. However, no one has been able to fix the problem with development and who should address it (or even who would want to).
Sorry if I did a poor job conveying that part, Necronic.
GasBandit
Staff member
What "unicorn farts" means is that hippies are wrong about saying we need to stop using oil (and coal) now in favor of alternative/clean/magical fairyland power sources that are extremely not ready for prime time in any way, shape, or form. We need more. More of everything, because the demand is far outpacing the supply on every front. Wind turbines and solar panels are nice and all, but hydrocarbons are civilization, and the Free Waterfall Juniors are going to have to learn to deal with that reality.
Basic Interpreters? PC-DOS (which is what made them a huge company)?
Your post is full of so much bad information I don't even know where to begin laughing at it.
You should at least try if you want to be taken seriously, though.
GasBandit
Staff member
They're as far along as unicorn farts.
Is that what you heard on your radio station? I guess I'd rather have the opinion of someone who actually understands science and doesn't refer to it as "unicorn farts".
What I want to really know is why neo-cons are so venomously opposed to even the mention of alternative or clean energies? It's like being environmentally responsible is kyrptonite to them. And why isn't nuclear fusion research like at the top of the list for most funding?
GasBandit You are way too adamant towards alternative/clean fuel methods.
Seriously, I get that their not affordable but you don't have to be so curmudgeonly towards them. And while your right on companies BP investing in alternative fuels, but these are like minor side businesses to them and don't put that much interest into them. Hell, BP all but nixed their solar operations ! And only 13 freakin' wind farms ain't shit compared to a country of over 3 million( don't tell me its enough, its not). They don't give a shit about the environment, and they will prolong the gas crop for as long as possible. You can tell me they are doing their best, but if that were true gas wouldn't be so damn expensive and we'd have solar powered cars by now(okay maybe not that far, but still). We are no-where near as close as we should be in terms of clean energy, and the real reason isn't because the science doesn't exist but because corporations and lobbyists won't go the extra mile to improve it and make it affordable to the common folk and save the planet. And yes I care about such things as planetary care, call me a hippy if you will I really don't care.
Seriously, I get that their not affordable but you don't have to be so curmudgeonly towards them. And while your right on companies BP investing in alternative fuels, but these are like minor side businesses to them and don't put that much interest into them. Hell, BP all but nixed their solar operations ! And only 13 freakin' wind farms ain't shit compared to a country of over 3 million( don't tell me its enough, its not). They don't give a shit about the environment, and they will prolong the gas crop for as long as possible. You can tell me they are doing their best, but if that were true gas wouldn't be so damn expensive and we'd have solar powered cars by now(okay maybe not that far, but still). We are no-where near as close as we should be in terms of clean energy, and the real reason isn't because the science doesn't exist but because corporations and lobbyists won't go the extra mile to improve it and make it affordable to the common folk and save the planet. And yes I care about such things as planetary care, call me a hippy if you will I really don't care.
Because they're conservatives, and CHANGE IS BAD!!!!
They're unfeasable because rhinoceros are an endangered species?
Heh, usaians complaining about gas prices is so funny to me...
Of course it's no where near as funny as complaining about subsidies for clean energy when some of the biggest subsidies are to the oil companies...
I was wondering, is there anywhere you can check where electrical energy comes from in the US? In Spain the Red Eléctrica Española (Spanish Electrical Network) has these graphs where you can see how much energy was consumed at each point in time (in intervals of ten minutes) and how much came from which sources:
https://demanda.ree.es/generacion_acumulada.html
Interestingly, wind (eólica) is an important source, ranging from 16 to 27 % (I would have expected it to vary more wildly), and hydraulic seems very useful to compensate for variations in demand. Solar energy doesn't appear, so it must be dumped into "Resto reg. esp." (Which must be sth like 'rest of special regimes' or something). (Other translations: Carbon=Coal, Intercambios int.=International exchanges)
Oh wait, here is the whole separation by source, and the mean by day, month and year (moving year, not natural year). It's funny how little solar energy we are using. Makes me wonder if we could be using many more alternative/clean energies.
http://www.ree.es/operacion/comprobar_ines.asp?Fichero=15112012
https://demanda.ree.es/generacion_acumulada.html
Interestingly, wind (eólica) is an important source, ranging from 16 to 27 % (I would have expected it to vary more wildly), and hydraulic seems very useful to compensate for variations in demand. Solar energy doesn't appear, so it must be dumped into "Resto reg. esp." (Which must be sth like 'rest of special regimes' or something). (Other translations: Carbon=Coal, Intercambios int.=International exchanges)
Oh wait, here is the whole separation by source, and the mean by day, month and year (moving year, not natural year). It's funny how little solar energy we are using. Makes me wonder if we could be using many more alternative/clean energies.
http://www.ree.es/operacion/comprobar_ines.asp?Fichero=15112012
- Status