Obamaconomy!!!

[Mr. Shaman]

"The U.S. "created this technology, but we didn't value it because [fossil fuel] energy was so cheap," said Ron Kenedi, an American who is vice president of the U.S. solar operations of Japan's Sharp Corp., a major manufacturer of solar cells.

"We need to reclaim our birthright."

Snow and ice couldn't keep Rich Steudemann from sliding into work on a recent morning. A mechanical engineer with more than two decades in the auto industry, Steudemann jumped at the chance to join Hemlock last fall as a quality-control expert.

"This is like the era of Henry Ford," said Steudemann, 45. "This industry is just starting to take off."​

What an appropriate (and, long-overdue) end of Lil' Dumbya's Legacy-Efforts...​

"Indeed, Bush was so unlucky, friends like Craddick joked that Arbusto should have been called El Busto. "It's hard to believe George couldn't hit one well," says a Bush observer. "After all, the Oil Patch was so rich with oil -- and Midland was in the middle of the Oil Patch -- you could smell oil on the wind."

***​

"Where America's politically unmentionable oil interests in Iraq are headed as the Bush administration leaves office remains anyone's guess, but out in the cold seems as good a guess as any. Back in 2002, the better class of commentator sniffed at the naiveté of "No Blood for Oil" - the chant of anti-war demonstrations around the country. But blood for oil may not be the worst of it. The worst, in the war's subdued and sorry denouement, may prove to be blood for no oil."

 

[Andy]

Did you actually read this? This is hilarious.

First, it talks about Americas innovative past. Who does it mention? Bell Labs. Huh... Bell Labs, that the government broke up. So our innovative past is over, after government wiped out a company that was innovating.

Then talks about how companies aren't spending as much on R&D... yet we can't possibly cut capital-gains taxes, and let's talk about wind-fall profit taxes. Where do companies get the money to spend on R&D? From profits!

Basically the left has hindered our ability to invest in R&D and now laments that we are not innovative enough.

Then look at their plans in this article... solar power? Wind mills? You do realize neither is successful at replacing even one power plant?

If you need 500 MWatts of power, and there is only 475 on the grid, you need another power plant don't you? What are you going to build? A 50 MWatt solar plant? A 50 MWatts wind mill? Or a 50 MWatt coal plant?

Answer? The coal plant. Why? Because what happens if the wind stops? You have rolling black out, or you damage the grid. So you MUST HAVE a dependable source of power. Nuclear, natgas, coal, or hydro. You can't JUST make a solar plant or wind mill.

In other words, investing in wind and solar is an expensive waste of money. (unless it's in a desert)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Then talks about how companies aren't spending as much on R&D... yet we can't possibly cut capital-gains taxes, and let's talk about wind-fall profit taxes. Where do companies get the money to spend on R&D? From profits!

Federal-subsidies don't count as profit....no matter what Exxon-Mobil says.

Because what happens if the wind stops? You have rolling black out, or you damage the grid.

The Grid is dead-tech.

It's time to consider (what you "conservatives" refer-to as) science-fiction options. It's The American Way.​

 

[Pidgey]

Been looking into a setup like that. They cost several times more than the "dead-tech Grid" alternative. Several as in orders of magnitude through the lifetime of the inhabitants. A mile of copper tubing buried in the yard... how many miles of tubing are you going to get in the yards of houses in Queens, Brooklyn, LA, and not to mention the huge apartment buildings? Where are you going to get that much copper? Didja' see that bank of batteries? Do you have any earthly idea what it takes to maintain such a bank? Do you have any idea what the hazards are?

I'm not disagreeing that there's alternative technology out there, merely that the economics and practical side of implementing them are still very much pie-in-the-sky.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Been looking into a setup like that. They cost several times more than the "dead-tech Grid" alternative.

I'm not disagreeing that there's alternative technology out there, merely that the economics and practical side of implementing them are still very much pie-in-the-sky.

I'm sure (at one time) the buggy-whip industry said the same, about "horseless-carriages". ​

 

[Pidgey]

True.

But that was when we had an extreme supply of very cheap energy laying around waiting to be utilized. That's what's changed--that day is over. The EROEI on that system that you've linked is absolutely horrific. I can think of a bunch of ways to make a far more efficient system with lower tech, actually. You've got a lot of major efficiency losses in that one like the inverters, for instance. I could go on and on and on...

Order-of-magnitude budgetary installation costs for the country, I'd expect you're in the $10 trillion range, which you'd have to obtain by way of selling products to other nations (customers) and dedicate something like 5% of the total retail cost of said products to your project of making us a renewable-energy nation. Therefore, in order to do it in one year, you'd need the amount of total exports to other nations to be about $200 trillion bucks worth AND the trade deficit would have to swing the other way where other nations started owing us money instead of how it is right now. The value of our (US) gross exports in 2006 was about $6.6 trillion, by the way, with a trade deficit running about 6%.

Naturally, it can't work that way (1-year implementation)--it'd have to be implemented over some period of years and that trade deficit's got to go first. Since the lion's share of that (the trade deficit) is energy costs (oil)... how do you resolve the equation?

Of course, that's all "back-of-napkin" calcs and I might have missed something glaring. Feel free to comment constructively.

 

[Pidgey]

That trade deficit percentage was of our GDP, by the way. At the time (2006), oil was much cheaper than it integrated out to be this last year (2008).

 

[Pidgey]

Speaking of oil, its availability and its price:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aHQqWFi7SN.g&refer=energy

 

[Pidgey]

A very good year-in-review:

http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/01/the-top-10-peak-oil-related-stories-of-2008/

 

[Mr. Shaman]

True.

But that was when we had an extreme supply of very cheap energy laying around waiting to be utilized.

.....Much like Hydrogen....one of the two most-prevelant gasses, in the entire-Universe!

That should take-care of any shortage-issues.​

 

[Pidgey]

.....Much like Hydrogen....one of the two most-prevelant gasses, in the entire-Universe!

That should take-care of any shortage-issues.​

You think so, huh?

Most of our commercial hydrogen we get from natural gas to save money. The stuff you're probably thinking about is in water. So:

H2O + e > H2 + O

It's that little "e" that's one of the biggest problems, the energy it takes to split the molecule. When you go to recombine or "burn" the hydrogen and oxygen to remake water, you'll realize a lot less energy to devote to "work done" than you input to split it in the first place. That's just plain physics.

Now, if we want to get into the vaunted "hydrogen economy" for a real study, there's no need to reinvent the wheel so here's an okay beginning:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2401

Trust me, if hydrogen's the solution, it's only going to be heavy hydrogens used for fusion (we still haven't solved that one, by the way). The idea that you're going to continue Happy Motoring with hydrogen is a complete red herring.

 

[Hobo1]

Why is this so hard? Nuclear energy is economical and generally environmentally friendly. Yes, nuclear wastes is a technical issue that needs to be resolved - but at least we are getting closer to a solution with recycled plutonium.

This is will be the solution for the next several centuries - and it fits into our existing grid.

I just can't understand why we are seriously considering wind and solar. They are good under very special circumstances - but the bottom line is they simply cannot work as the total solution.

Natural gas would make a great interim step until we can build all nuclear.

Hasn't this been kicked around enough?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The idea that you're going to continue Happy Motoring with hydrogen is a complete red herring.

Yeah....I'll try to remember that.

You have heard about them, there flyin'-machines, right??​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I just can't understand why we are seriously considering wind and solar. They are good under very special circumstances - but the bottom line is they simply cannot work as the total solution.

Ah, yes.....what will happen to this country, if there are mutiple sources of energy....that no one (entity) can monopolize???? ​

 

[Pidgey]

I was generally including The Masses in that "The idea that you're..." Yes, it's likely that the elite rich will have access to hydrogen as a portable energy carrier.

Yes, I understand that proponents are capable of literally building a small distribution network as well as supplying a very small number of operational vehicles at an extreme loss to generate PR in order to garner enough public sentiment to get subsidies codified. "Food for fuel" (ethanol) essentially worked the same way, you know, and while almost everyone's finally come to some agreement that that's a real BS solution, it's still finding its way into our gasoline, isn't it?

Lemme' ask you a few direct questions, Mr. Shaman: Did you bother to read that hydrogen economy link? Any of it? And if you did, do you have the requisite knowledge required to digest it? Further, do you just categorically deny the plausibility because it doesn't fit in with your idea of a Utopian future if only you can get rid of all the Republicans, Conservatives, Christians and whatever?