<< <i>Give me a break on the solar. The recent Solyndra bankruptcy cost the taxpayers over $500 million in loan guarantees. That $500m paid for 1100 jobs for 18 months, and a photo op for president. Spain bet heavy on solar and now has 20% unemployment, 50% for 25 year olds, with a climate that is better suited to solar than most of the U.S. Nobody is stopping solar, if anything politicians in the U.S. and abroad, have been pouring way too much money into solar, and not enough into proven methods of energy production that aren't as politically popular. >>
Don't forget they were suppose to hire 4,000+ employees but only ended up employing 1/4th that many. So, how much did the CEO, CFO, etc pull out of that 500m as salary? How much when to BO's re-election fund?
I do like this phase, "They were all the time telling us of super batteries that will not get developed because they will last to long." So, big oil controlled Duracell? Frankly, if Duracell knew of this technology, they would have jumped on it in a heart beat. Someone is blowing smoke.
Didnt read all the posts, but will add that there is nothing Bernanke, Obama, Congress, nor corporate America can do to eliminate the pull of gravity. The only cure is the most powerful force---time.
Ah, the much vaunted Kyoto Protocol. The one where the US pays for much lower emissions standards to the point that the US's contribution to world pollution is insignificant - while China, India and Brazil can do whatever they want in terms of pollution while they ramp up their industrial production.
Let's not forget the environmental lobby, who gets funded by government grants and has been discredited with bogus science and fraud whilst vying to nail down those lucrative grants. Nah, there's no incentive to lie and cheat on the university level in environmental science. What a waste of training - when they could be learning how to do something better, instead they are learning how to sabotage the very industries that provide an easy living for them.
It's sick.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i> So what's your idea? Proposal? Searching for answers not rehashing bashing! What type of new energy do you see as a new path? >>
Of what is currently out there, oil sands and nuclear are the most economically cost efficient and long term environmentally viable.
Solar is okay, but the math still doesn't add up. If solar was so great why don't more companies use it? Virtually every company uses enough electricity, and has enough sun exposed roof top to make the math work. The math doesn't work unless there are massive subsidies. So who is blocking solar? Why doesn't every big box store in a sunny climate have solar panels on the roof? Because the money doesn't add up, that's why, not even in NV, AZ, TX and other sun drenched areas. Perhaps if commercial spaces were given some incentives same as small residential, solar would have wider adoption. Perhaps private foundations could be set up by private citizen solar advocates such as yourself, that subsidize solar installations. Private foundations, private prizes might be a better route for solar than massive government subsidies.
Emotional environments are blocking nuclear and oil sands. As for EVs looks like the battery issue is solved with the 2011 Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt. But guess what? Hardly anyone is buying those electric plug in cars. Like solar, the pure EVs seem to only be viable with massive subsidies.
<< <i>But guess what? Hardly anyone is buying those electric plug in cars. Like solar, the pure EVs seem to only be viable with massive subsidies. >>
That and they are only good for short commutes. Remember, the mileage range they came is using the battery only to move the car. Turn on air, nav, radio, heat, etc and your "range" drops. Getting stuck in heavy traffic in the middle of winter would be a scary situation.
Maybe they should concentrate on the hybrids but make them use pure ethanol. That way they came keep that crap out of our gas.
Then, let's talk about "Stan Ovshinsky, the inventor of the NiMH battery and principal of Energy Conversion Devices with the late Dr. Iris Ovshinsky". Did Mr. and Mrs. Ovshinsky financially benefit from their research? Yes. Did they have to sell out to GM? No. Did GM have the right to do whatever they wanted with the rights after they bought them? Yes.
Now let's discuss the rest of the article. Is this a well-documented story? Not on the basis of this environmental nut job's singlular posting on some environmental blog. Give me some facts with real documentation.
How do we know that the battery was worth putting into production? We don't. The fact is, GM may have tested it sufficiently enough to have discarded the idea because it was no big advantage. It would have been expensive, yes? There is *no* demand for electric cars, is there? Whatever happened to the Volt? Have you bought yours yet??? That is exactly my point!
Fact - if GM had seen any profit potential for this miracle battery and a car to go with it, GM would have gone into full production with it, especially when they had just bought the rights. It would make no business sense whatever to own a breakthrough technology and then fail to capitalize it TO THE MAX - especially when Japanese car companies were busy running circles around GM in the early to mid 1980's. duh. If there is any conspiracy, it is the crazies who insist that the US trash it's standard of living in order to support their junk science projects.
Every year, there is a race across the country in solar-powered cars, put on by engineering students. It's possible to get great gas mileage for a vehicle that is totally impractical that is extremely lightweight, can only get up to 25mph on a good day and can only hold one person with no luggage or gear.
The environmental nut jobs who claim miracles in battery development and conspiracies by Big Oil to suppress its use are no different than the illicit researchers who dummied up results on global warming in order to continue the push for more governmental funding largesse.
Believe what you want, I'd prefer facts.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Comments
<< <i>Anybody want to cheer for ethanol? >>
No, that crap killing my feed bill. Every one should by corn stocks cause corn going up up up in price!
<< <i>Give me a break on the solar. The recent Solyndra bankruptcy cost the taxpayers over $500 million in loan guarantees. That $500m paid for 1100 jobs for 18 months, and a photo op for president. Spain bet heavy on solar and now has 20% unemployment, 50% for 25 year olds, with a climate that is better suited to solar than most of the U.S. Nobody is stopping solar, if anything politicians in the U.S. and abroad, have been pouring way too much money into solar, and not enough into proven methods of energy production that aren't as politically popular. >>
Don't forget they were suppose to hire 4,000+ employees but only ended up employing 1/4th that many. So, how much did the CEO, CFO, etc pull out of that 500m as salary? How much when to BO's re-election fund?
I do like this phase, "They were all the time telling us of super batteries that will not get developed because they will last to long." So, big oil controlled Duracell? Frankly, if Duracell knew of this technology, they would have jumped on it in a heart beat. Someone is blowing smoke.
Works that way with cars, appliances, or what ever.
graph source
I'm speechless.
With logic like that, people would stop buying American cars and load up on long life Toyota Camrys!!!
edited to add: GREAT post(2¢ worth), Comrad jmski52!!!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Let's not forget the environmental lobby, who gets funded by government grants and has been discredited with bogus science and fraud whilst vying to nail down those lucrative grants. Nah, there's no incentive to lie and cheat on the university level in environmental science. What a waste of training - when they could be learning how to do something better, instead they are learning how to sabotage the very industries that provide an easy living for them.
It's sick.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i> So what's your idea? Proposal? Searching for answers not rehashing bashing! What type of new energy do you see as a new path? >>
Of what is currently out there, oil sands and nuclear are the most economically cost efficient and long term environmentally viable.
Solar is okay, but the math still doesn't add up. If solar was so great why don't more companies use it? Virtually every company uses enough electricity, and has enough sun exposed roof top to make the math work. The math doesn't work unless there are massive subsidies. So who is blocking solar? Why doesn't every big box store in a sunny climate have solar panels on the roof? Because the money doesn't add up, that's why, not even in NV, AZ, TX and other sun drenched areas. Perhaps if commercial spaces were given some incentives same as small residential, solar would have wider adoption. Perhaps private foundations could be set up by private citizen solar advocates such as yourself, that subsidize solar installations. Private foundations, private prizes might be a better route for solar than massive government subsidies.
Emotional environments are blocking nuclear and oil sands. As for EVs looks like the battery issue is solved with the 2011 Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt. But guess what? Hardly anyone is buying those electric plug in cars. Like solar, the pure EVs seem to only be viable with massive subsidies.
<< <i>But guess what? Hardly anyone is buying those electric plug in cars. Like solar, the pure EVs seem to only be viable with massive subsidies. >>
That and they are only good for short commutes. Remember, the mileage range they came is using the battery only to move the car. Turn on air, nav, radio, heat, etc and your "range" drops. Getting stuck in heavy traffic in the middle of winter would be a scary situation.
Maybe they should concentrate on the hybrids but make them use pure ethanol. That way they came keep that crap out of our gas.
Half a $Billion for what? Or should I say, for whom?
Wanna see how fast green energy eats up taxpayer dollars, not to mention the campaign donation payback? (link stolen from another website)
Then, let's talk about "Stan Ovshinsky, the inventor of the NiMH battery and principal of Energy Conversion Devices with the late Dr. Iris Ovshinsky". Did Mr. and Mrs. Ovshinsky financially benefit from their research? Yes. Did they have to sell out to GM? No. Did GM have the right to do whatever they wanted with the rights after they bought them? Yes.
Now let's discuss the rest of the article. Is this a well-documented story? Not on the basis of this environmental nut job's singlular posting on some environmental blog. Give me some facts with real documentation.
How do we know that the battery was worth putting into production? We don't. The fact is, GM may have tested it sufficiently enough to have discarded the idea because it was no big advantage. It would have been expensive, yes? There is *no* demand for electric cars, is there? Whatever happened to the Volt? Have you bought yours yet??? That is exactly my point!
Fact - if GM had seen any profit potential for this miracle battery and a car to go with it, GM would have gone into full production with it, especially when they had just bought the rights. It would make no business sense whatever to own a breakthrough technology and then fail to capitalize it TO THE MAX - especially when Japanese car companies were busy running circles around GM in the early to mid 1980's. duh. If there is any conspiracy, it is the crazies who insist that the US trash it's standard of living in order to support their junk science projects.
Every year, there is a race across the country in solar-powered cars, put on by engineering students. It's possible to get great gas mileage for a vehicle that is totally impractical that is extremely lightweight, can only get up to 25mph on a good day and can only hold one person with no luggage or gear.
The environmental nut jobs who claim miracles in battery development and conspiracies by Big Oil to suppress its use are no different than the illicit researchers who dummied up results on global warming in order to continue the push for more governmental funding largesse.
Believe what you want, I'd prefer facts.
I knew it would happen.