I think that green energy needs to go away.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

Is there anyone around here who still thinks green energy is something worth investing?

I certainly hope not. I'll keep my dirty coal and liquid hydrocarbons, thank you!

Whatcha gonna do when the windmill stops?

Capitalism will bring this around when it's time has come.

[Jonnin]

absolutely green energy is worth the effort.

Now, there are plenty of scammers looking for a handout (grant) from government, same as some other R&D areas, but that is not the same question (should the govt insist on results from R&D of any sort?).

But what can we do with green energy?

LED lightbulbs use a fraction of incandescent and will one day replace the toxic spiral flourescent ones. They are nontoxic, have a long life, and come in a variety of colors allowing for not ultra bright white only lighting.

Hybrid cars. Say what you will, my mom has a prius and her gas bill should make anyone who drives "around town" want one. The car is awful on the interstate or anything much over 50 MPH, but for her needs, its a big money saver that has been reliable and worth it.

XXX-ane gas cars. Burns clean (typically C02, H20, Carbon/burn, and not much else produced). We can make as much as we want (hydrogen will work too, and it burns SUPER clean). My uncle has has a propane running farm truck since the 80s.

Letting some real engineers (not enviro science whackos or save the whale types) have a go at the problem can produce outstanding results. We CAN produce goods that use less energy or fuel and alternate fuels/energy sources. The problem is that R&D has failures even under ideal circumstances. Under "far less than ideal" circumstances where grants are given to buddies instead of qualified researchers, or if the grants are given with a pre-set agenda (global warming research, etc) then results are sketchy.

So, cutting all green R&D is bad. Putting someone with some sense in charge of it is good. Its just like anything else, really: put an idealist with a liberal arts degree in charge of engineering and you get a horrible mess.

As for windmills: when the wind stops, you have a capacitor. We know how to store electricity, whether in a battery or whatever. You store it and use on demand, produce when you can. I think windmills are fail currently, sure, but someday, who knows? Covering the planet in 1 kilowatt producing windmills in a bunch of "wind farms" is idiotic. But if some egghead has a breakthru and can get 10 megawatts out of one windmill, .... that will be a game changer.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jonnin

[monkeylizard]

It's absolutley worth investing in. The question is: should the government be investing in it?

People used to have the same attitude towards "horseless carriages" and railroads.

[old codger voice]

What are you going to do when that dad-blamed contraption breaks down? Or when you run out of steam? I'll keep my horse thank you very much. He runs forever and fuels himself with cheap and abundant grass. Nevermind that the streets are filled with his poop, he travels at a slow speed, and comes with a standard 1 horsepower engine.

[/old codger voice]

Maybe the so called green energy stuff we have today isn't going to pan out. Early steam cars didn't either. But they paved the way for other things that did. If the costs can come down and the outputs come up, renewable energy tech makes a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. To get there is going to take a lot of investment in research and large scale manufacturing. I'd prefer that be the private sector and in many ways it is. GE does a lot of research in wind and solar. All of the major car companies have some form of a battery lab. Research labs at universities get grants from the government, private foundations, and private companies (GE, Oracle, Sharp, Mitsubishi, etc). At this stage in the technology, I'm OK with gov't grants to research facilities for discovering new technologies, materials, etc. Once that stuff is found though, let the private sector find new ways to take that to market. I don't think the government needs to be bankrolling the companies that manufacture green energy products/components, but to say that the tech shouln't be researched and invested in is a bit narrow-minded. Government policies regarding taxation can also promote private investment in the research and manufacturing. I'm all for that if it's done responsibly and not as kickbacks to campaign contributors.

The touted benefit of renewables being less polluting is sketchy in my mind. I can't tell if the energy, mining, and industrial waste created by making renewable energy components is any better or worse than traditional sources, based on various studies that I've perused. But if it is indeed less polluting, why wouldn't we want it? I'm no tree-hugging granola-eating patchoulli-wearing clove-smoking drum-beating hippie, but I sure like hiking and camping in the mountains, seeing healthy populations of deer, bear, turkey, and other wildlife (for watching and for hunting), drinking clean water, eating clean produce, and breathing fresh air. I want the generations after us to have the same, or better. If switching from fossil fuels to renewables can accomplish that at a comparable price, we'd be fools not to take it. For now, the cost/price component just isn't there.

There is 1 big benefit to renewable energy technology that I think many TGOers can appreciate. It can be decentralized. Right now I'm 100% dependent on NES getting some juice from the TVA who makes it from big plants (coal, gas, hydro, nuclear). I could put solar cells on my roof, solar film on my windows, geothermal under my house, and a wind turbine in the back yard and not be dependent on TVA/NES. Ice storm on the way? Who cares. It would look like crap, annoy the neighbors, and cost so much I'd have to stay in the house for 25+ years to get the payoff financially. Those are the current problems than I think can be solved with more investment in the technologies. Again, that doesn't have to be government investment.

In many ways, our own homes are microcosms of the world energy trade. We hear lots of talk of our nation being energy independent, while individually we couldn't be any more dependent on others. I know the politics are different (TVA doesn't want to blow us up, for example), but the constraints are similar. "Green" energy tech can be part of the solution to both national and individual depenedence on others. It just has to grow up first.

Personally, I can't wait for renewables to be viable.

ETA: Cross-post with Jonnin. +1 to what he said.

Edited October 19, 2012 by monkeylizard

[Guest ThePunisher]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

Is there anyone around here who still thinks green energy is something worth investing?

I certainly hope not. I'll keep my dirty coal and liquid hydrocarbons, thank you!

Whatcha gonna do when the windmill stops?

Capitalism will bring this around when it's time has come.

The Marxist in the WH is hell bent on this money saping energy at this time of our economic crisis where there is no demand for green energy in the free market system due to its inefficiency and cost. Wasting taxpayers money to pay back political cronies for a lack of demand, and expensive energy is symptomatic of what's wrong in DC. At this time of our current economic crisis, it is stupid to destroy our economy that uses a proven and cheaper energy(coal, natural gas, oil) for a more expensive green energy that will kill jobs, and make any kind of manufacturing in this country too costly. But this has been the plan for the commies since they took office. They are hell bent on destroying our economy. A free enterprise market system(capitalism) will determine the viability of green energy, and forced Marxism in a capitalistic system just doesn't mix well.

Edited October 19, 2012 by ThePunisher

[East_TN_Patriot]

http://blog.heritage...nergy-failures/

Is there anyone around here who still thinks green energy is something worth investing?

I certainly hope not. I'll keep my dirty coal and liquid hydrocarbons, thank you!

Whatcha gonna do when the windmill stops?

Capitalism will bring this around when it's time has come.

Whatcha gonna do when the oil runs dry and the coal isn't so easy to get? I think what you are really trying to say is that you think that government investment in green energy should go away. I don't necessarily disagree with that. If they want to provide some simple tax incentives for energy production and research, for ALL sources of energy, then I can live with that. This crap that the Obama administration has done is simply criminal in my mind. I'd love to see our society find cost-effective ways to provide reliable energy sources and minimize or eliminate the need for oil and coal. It would make our economy and nation more secure, and would likely reduce air pollution. I'm all for that myself. I want my kids to grow up in a world where they can afford to drive a car to a vacation spot that's not obscured by smog and air pollution, or mountains that haven't been strip mined or subjected to mountain-top removal to get at the coal. The technology isn't there yet, and entrepreneurs are working on ways to make it a reality, but we need to let the market dictate which of these innovations are best for our society. I also highly support the expanded use of nuclear power.

[Jonnin]

Many of the products we use daily are the result of government funded R&D. It is one of the BEST uses of taxpayer money we have, actually --- most are complete waste, while R&D is only 75% or so waste. And of the waste, a lot of it is "well, now we know what does not work" which is of benefit, indirectly, to development.

Ive been on hugely successful projects and total failures. More successes than fails but most of what we look into is a modest advance in existing, working tech rather than totally new concepts. For green energy, we KNOW a lot of stuff that will work but it costs too much today to use it.... so the goal should be a hefty investment in making the known solutions cost less so they can be used. That will NOT happen under this administration (and lets be honest, probably not under MR either) but with the right leadership, it would create jobs AND reduce energy costs long term, a win/win scenario.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All good posts. I only maintain the time will come for the fruits of capitalism to be unveiled at its proper time.

That was the main thing about the President's green energy policy: to help bankrupt us that much more.

My son showed me a lot of the benefits of the green energy possibilities when I went last year to visit UT's

entry into the Solar Decathlon. We shared some great conversations about the technologies used in the

$600,000, 620(appr) square foot house. He pointed up to the roof and asked me if I knew what the pipes

were. I said I thought they were the solar array. He said "yep, from Solyndra", and we both laughed. He also

showed me his most important work on the project, which was otherwise damned near everything, the

systems integration, and it wasn't evidently any easy task for a mechanical engineering student, but it was

very impressive. That wasn't even his focus in engineering.

So I'm not the "anti" in this field of endeavor that some might think. I want things to come in it's proper sequence

with politics left out of the equation. Who know's? It might even be forgotten when something else discovered

better replaces those ideas being discussed now are possibly even forgotten or dismissed.

We don't really know where our technology will lead us. We do know that capitalism works and brings technology

closer to a workable time frame than pushing it, especially with political undertones that make it more unfavorable.

I'm obviously proud of the work my son did on the Living Light project. You would be, too. I learned a lot of things

except which way my son is going with his degrees. Now he is working with others on a paper about nanotechnology

in Germany. Probably a doctorate soon, also. He keeps me confused, in a good way.

This stuff may see it's time come, but only when the politics is used in other ways.

[monkeylizard]

Now that's a much more intelligent and reasonable position than your "damn the torpedoes" OP.

Edited October 19, 2012 by monkeylizard

[mikegideon]

Capitalism will bring this around when it's time has come.

This. Green energy ahead of much higher priorities is what we have now.

In my job, I manage a HUGE list of things to do. If it makes in on the list at all, it's worthwhile. Some items sit on the list for months before I can allocate any manpower to them. We are driven by priorities and budgets. If we lose track of either, I'll be looking for another job. Obama has a problem with priorities and budgets. On top of that, his subordinates are as incompetent as him. That's why HE needs to be looking for another job.

[Jonnin]

I am going to say that I do NOT think that capitalism works best for all R&D. Take oil: what oil company executive would spend a few billon from profits on making hydrogen based fuel cars? That would kill the demand for oil in a decade --- all their infrastructure and investments would be worthless! It is often not in the interest of a company to produce a new thing that makes the existing, profitable setup obsolete, and not only will companies not invest in such things, they may even use clout to prevent others from doing so as well (by buying up the company, patent, or whatever).

A pure capitalist model of energy is not going to go green, it is not going to conserve or plan for the future. It only exists to make a big profit ASAP, and while I applaud this, profits do not always make the best society or long term models.

[mikegideon]

I am going to say that I do NOT think that capitalism works best for all R&D. Take oil: what oil company executive would spend a few billon from profits on making hydrogen based fuel cars? That would kill the demand for oil in a decade --- all their infrastructure and investments would be worthless! It is often not in the interest of a company to produce a new thing that makes the existing, profitable setup obsolete, and not only will companies not invest in such things, they may even use clout to prevent others from doing so as well (by buying up the company, patent, or whatever).

A pure capitalist model of energy is not going to go green, it is not going to conserve or plan for the future. It only exists to make a big profit ASAP, and while I applaud this, profits do not always make the best society or long term models.

Why would it take the oil companies? The railroads weren't overtaken by railroad guys. If there's a market and a REAL engineering solution, the funding can and will come from capitalists. Happens every day.

[monkeylizard]

Railroad execs were too short sighted. They thought they were in the railroad business instead of the transportation business. Had they seen it coming, things could have gone very differently. I think we'd either have had railroads holding/hiding aero-space and automobile patents to prevent their use, or we'd have Union-Pacific Regional Airways taking us to see grandma on Thanksgiving after driving to the airport in our CSX cars.

[peejman]

Where would we be without the space program? Would an entrepreneur have funded that? The government has to do some things. A capitalist wants a return on his investment. Core research rarely provides a timely ROI. The stuff that's been funded by the current administration go from questionable to completely ludacris, but that doesn't mean we should stop.

[mikegideon]

Where would we be without the space program? Would an entrepreneur have funded that? The government has to do some things. A capitalist wants a return on his investment. Core research rarely provides a timely ROI. The stuff that's been funded by the current administration go from questionable to completely ludacris, but that doesn't mean we should stop.

I don't think we should stop. I think we should keep it from wrecking the economy, like the current administration is doing now.

AFIK, the space program had zero ROI.

Edited October 19, 2012 by mikegideon

[DaveTN]

I work in the aerospace industry. We kill more trees than Bark Beetles and no one cares; so I can’t get real excited about it.

[mikegideon]

I work in the aerospace industry. We kill more trees than Bark Beetles and no one cares; so I can’t get real excited about it.

I've known quite a few folks, mostly engineers, in that biz, especially when I lived in St. Louis. Most were on the defense side, so I couldn't get them to say anything about work. Usually talked about women and baseball

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Folks, I never said stop R&D by the government or through private concerns. Technological innovation is not

driven by the government. The government has taken this branch over. The mind is where tech innovation comes

from be it public or private.

I thought I made it clear my stance on this: get the damned politics out of it. The politics drives something in a certain

direction to benefit certain groups of people, not necessarily society. I knew this would head in different directions.

The President's green initiative had nothing to do with getting us in green energy, but only to spend money and help

fund his re-election, believe it or not. JFK's desire, in the 60's to be the first to visit the moon was valuable in as much

as delivering us Tang and Sudafed as it was the technology for the future. When you compare that to the green jobs

and energy initiative it begins to become obvious to me, hopefully you, too. One was for political gain and the other

was for growing a tech industry that benefit for generations to come.

That list of green energy failures is a shame and should never be allowed to happen, ever.

BTW, I am well aware of how the railroad history went. Good points made there, also. I'm glad CSX runs trains and

doesn't make cars.

[mikegideon]

BTW, I am well aware of how the railroad history went. Good points made there, also. I'm glad CSX runs trains and

doesn't make cars.

Yep. If I ever see gunfire coming out of a locomotive, I'll think of you first . Then, I'll probably call and see if you'll stop and pick me up.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

:rofl: You got it!

[Jonnin]

Why would it take the oil companies? The railroads weren't overtaken by railroad guys. If there's a market and a REAL engineering solution, the funding can and will come from capitalists. Happens every day.

How to explain it.... Oil aside. Forget oil and energy.

Capitalists will not fund quality research that does not lead to a path of profits. Not all R&D is profitable: take a cure for a disease that only 1000 or so people have in the world: not profitable to spend billions over decades to find a cure, is it? Or military R&D: it is not all that profitable to do R&D on a new bomb or whatever during peacetime, so cut that research because no one will be buying up the tech in bulk until the next war. Or the next generation of airplain or unmanned whatever. The govt buys 10 of them to play with, but not billions of them to make war, its not profitable. But when war breaks out, and the other guy out-techs you, those R&D dollars seem like a better idea even if not profitable for the deveopers.....

Green energy is the same. Dirty will always be cheaper, more profitable, and capitalists will always destroy to get better profits. Always.

yes, get politics out of it is very important. You posted that after I slowly typed this one.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jonnin

[mikegideon]

How to explain it.... Oil aside. Forget oil and energy.

Capitalists will not fund quality research that does not lead to a path of profits. Not all R&D is profitable: take a cure for a disease that only 1000 or so people have in the world: not profitable to spend billions over decades to find a cure, is it? Or military R&D: it is not all that profitable to do R&D on a new bomb or whatever during peacetime, so cut that research because no one will be buying up the tech in bulk until the next war. Or the next generation of airplain or unmanned whatever. The govt buys 10 of them to play with, but not billions of them to make war, its not profitable. But when war breaks out, and the other guy out-techs you, those R&D dollars seem like a better idea even if not profitable for the deveopers.....

Green energy is the same. Dirty will always be cheaper, more profitable, and capitalists will always destroy to get better profits. Always.

yes, get politics out of it is very important. You posted that after I slowly typed this one.

OK... but that drug would become profitable if many more people had the disease. Enter the Obama solution.

We don't need the government driving up energy costs when the economy is in the tank. Greenpeace can kiss my ass.

[Jonnin]

OK... but that drug would become profitable if many more people had the disease. Enter the Obama solution.

We don't need the government driving up energy costs when the economy is in the tank. Greenpeace can kiss my ass.

Yea, pretty much.

Lets put it in october mode. We have spent untold amounts of money on breast cancer research because 1) people like boobs and 2) a fair number of people have this cancer. We have yet to cure it. No capitalist in their right mind would have spent anywhere near this amount for marginal results --- and only a moron would continue to pour good money after bad if the desire is actual profits. Even if they find a cure tomorrow, to recoup the losses would take until 2050 or later. There is some evidence that a very, very dangerous and expensive procedure can cure aids (and 2 or 3 other immune system diseases, including MS). But no one can get this treatment ..... it costs too much and has too great a chance to kill the patient .... and the R&D on it is almost nonexistent. It is not profitable and the financial risks of killing someone to cure them is not worth it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, Steve Jobs and Woz did something in their garage that changed the world. Maybe not 100% original

innovation, but not a dime spent from the government coffers, and it changed the world. While I'm on Jobs,

think about the Ipod and Iphone.

SpaceX is continuing where the government let go on the space industry. They're a private concern with

some unique solutions to complex problems NASA spent untold fortunes on. Be careful when criticizing

private industry. BTW, profits drive everything, even government paid for ideas. Take the profit motive

away and this country might as well be annexed by Mexico. Ooh, I don't want to go there.

[mikegideon]

Look at Red Bull. They did two things recently that Obama and his crew couldn't do. Put a man in space, and won a presidential debate.

[monkeylizard]

<<Cross-post with Jonnin again>>

Don't forget that government and capitalist companies aren't the only sources of R&D money. The medical R&D world is running on lots of private donations and trusts. It gets government and corporate dollars too, but it does get some of its funding from private sources. Research into rare or unprofitable disease is a great example.

<<New thought>>

Do mainstream envrionmental groups like The Sierra Club, WWF, NWF, Audubon Society, NRDC, etc. fund research of renewable energy? If not, they should. The end result of renewables plays very much into their stated goals. Same for the fringe-lunatic groups like ELF and Greenpeace, but I don't expect anything productive from them.

Edited October 19, 2012 by monkeylizard