T. Boone Pickens is giving wind power a big boost with his energy plan. Another sign that America is poised for a renewable energy revolution: MIT researchers reported last week that they’ve discovered a way to save solar energy for use when the sun doesn’t shine — a major breakthrough. Previously, storing solar energy has been prohibitively expensive and inefficient, according to MIT, which said the team’s discovery could unleash a “solar revolution” and “transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
81 Comments
So what’s going to be Paul’s excuse now?
I’m sure it will have something to do with this set of experts just dont understand whast they are talking about…. ROFL!!
What does “storing solar energy” mean? I haven’t read the report. Must mean storing electrical energy generally. A practical method for storing large quantitities of electrical energy hasn’t been discovered so far.
Using a lot of car batteries just doesn’t do it.
Storage of large quantities of electrical power for later use would revolutionize our power industry.
So, what’s up with this?
Jwink, It’s storing the excess in the form of Hydrogen and Oxygen. That’s the breakthrough. Making it cheaper to run the average household and being able to run disconnected from the grid as much as possible. Major breakthrough.
Interestingly enough the Aussies have developed a new tech for fuel cells that reduce the amount of platinum required for water splitting.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/cathode-fuel-cells.php
In a few years we can have backyard fuel cells (actually many do in Japan) like we have backup petrol run generators. All it takes is leaders in Congress to propel this industry. Too bad we have Republicans like Brownback and Roberts who oppose such funding. Keep them in mind next time you have a power outage.
Yeah, cells composed of cobalt and platinum catalysts.
Cheaper energy (cough)
The major producers of cobalt are in Africa, a place we don’t often not tread.
Platinum, well…hold onto your stock market portfolio when the prices sky rocket.
Don’t worry MP – I’m sure he will come up with something!
This looks like good news indeed. I have also read about ‘two-photon’ catalysts that can extend water-splitting capabilities with sunlight.
Major sources for cobalt include places we don’t want to tread like Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway and Belgium.
http://www.thecdi.com/general.php?r=E6EM5BQBAL
Yup Regular, another good point. Can’t trust those Canadians.
“All it takes is leaders in Congress to propel this industry.”
The economic ignorance in this statement is staggering. If the technology works, and is economically competitive, it won’t need gov’t to help it along. If it’s not, gov’t help either won’t save it, or worse, will push the technology and development down a less efficient path as producers seek gov’t subsidies rather than market competitiveness.
Plus, more gov’t subsidies simply means more gov’t corruption. The more economic decisions gov’t makes, the more those with a stake in those decisions will work (legally or otherwise) to influence gov’t.
When will we ever learn?
Besides, all Pickens is really boosting is his stock portfolio . . .
Maggotpunk
Posted August 4, 2008 at 6:03 am | Permalink
So what’s going to be Paul’s excuse now?
—
:lol:
Like you, I have always been amazed by the “ability” of knee-jerk conservatives to yammer on about the “exceptionalism” of America and American ingenuity…and then turn around and want to base policy decisions on a total deficit of that same American ingenuity.
For example, there are some here who, due to their own impoverished imaginations, can’t see that the US can innovate its way out of a crude-based energy policy and and pretty damn quickly, too (within a generation), if — and I repeat IF — Washington will just seed the clouds correctly.
Of course, given the powers that be in the GOP “seeding the clouds correctly” implies one of two options: one, ensuring that Big Oil sits front and center in determining US energy policy (ie, Big Oil isn’t threatened by alternative sources; for instance, Exxon will of course become America’s beloved and trusted source of wind power, etc.), or two, alternative energy is strangled in the crib, post haste, if Exxon will in fact be cut out.
This is one area where the Democrats differ significantly from the Republics. As we can see from the past 7+ years, if the GOP controls energy policy then Big Oil will get the poppa’s chair at the table. That will be accomplished in total secrecy if necessary. If the Democrats control energy policy then Big Oil loses the poppa’s chair…but it ain’t kicked out of supper altogether. And Big Oil won’t be protected in the press, either.
Way to go MIT!
First the Celtics. Now this. That state is on a roll.
Don’t forget the Red Sox outlander. And yes, the ‘Tute is quite a place. A bit crazy perhaps …
I swear it is those who have oil on their land or oil in their towns who are scared to death of a country free of oil dependence. Note GMC is from the biggest oil refining town in Kansas, and BSfromMactown is the second.
Yeah what on earth will you all do when people are buying the techn to power their own items rather than be enslavedto the big energy providers? Will you stocks & retirement suffer?
I read that drilling in anwr, will provide the US with 12 years of oil.
12 years.
Now, how is it even worth it? Go with the alternative. Quit being so damn greedy.
“scared to death of a country free of oil dependence”
What is that? “Scared to death?” Puuuuleeeeeeeeeeeease.!!!!!!!!
How ’bout, um, realistic?
Virtually any new technology needs subsidizing in its infancy, at least until economies of scale can kick in.
When you’re talking about providing power for your society, what could be a better investment?
In case you aren’t aware, Oil production is a mature industry.
There are advantages to connecting your photo voltaic system to the grid, instead of storing it in batteries, or whatever. You should be able to sell your excess energy to the power company and if your system is not generating enough power, you can still take some from the grid. Now, if only West Star would pay us for the electricity that we generate in the form of a tax credit on our bills. The state of Kansas should push for this. It would make PV alot more attractive and economical.
OK children,
Read the link.
It’s 99% BS with only one ‘breakthrough’. They’ve developed a way to use an electric current to produce H2 with a neutral pH.
That’s it. As far as being able to store H2 gas more efficiently or more economically or safer, Nada.
Any new developement in solar panels? No, nada.
A new developement in fuel cells? More economical? No.
So, what do you have? A scientist that can bubble off H2 and O2 gas in a beaker at room temperature with a neutral pH. That’s your break through.
Why is it news? Why? Climate change! GW!
BS, sorry.
Admit it:
If I had said, prior to this thread post, that solar energy was a “marginal, botique energy source” you libs would have pounced on me.
However, the folks working on this project say JUST THAT and you accept his terminology!
Kind of like Bill Gates and Microsoft. Every new operating system is marketed by running down the old system. Of course, when the previous system came out, they did the same thing —
You liberals allow your experts to say exactly the same thing conservatives are saying.
Conservatives simply are not allowed to say those same words!
Virtually any new technology needs subsidizing in its infancy, at least until economies of scale can kick in.
No – over the years, we’ve simply created a giant teat where “virturally any new technology” which shows any promise (real or, as is often the case, illusory) can GET subsidies, if they can simply pass enough BS – or dollars – to the right politicians.
Ultimately, economics will rule out. Again, if the technology works, and is economically competitive, it won’t need gov’t to help it along. If it’s not, gov’t help either can’t save it, or worse, will push the technology and development down a less efficient path as producers seek gov’t subsidies rather than market competitiveness.
In the meantime, lots of snake oil salesmen will soak the taxpayers. Again.
Google this and see what you find
“T boone pickens + water rights + kansas”
I think he just likes ALL our natural resources in Kansas, and he sees a bunch of rubes ripe for the picking.
He’s got his bushel basket about half full now…
And the same subsidies that push forward the oil, gas industries are the same subsidies that will push forward the new energies.
It floors me how anti- renewables you people are. You want to choke them off before they can go anywhere. Tell me GMC, if you had a good idea, how would you fund it? Do you let ElDorado refinery guys in on your secret so they can take it over?
Please.
Phantom
“Economies of scale”
If this system requires platinum, the cost might go up rather than down.
What has the catalytic converter market done for the price of precious metals?
Now, we will need a burgler alarm on our electrical systems.
It won’t just be the copper wire they are after!
Anyway, you self-righteous back slappers are a bit ahead of yourselves.
I hope that this works.
However, it is not “new” really.
Electrolysis has been around for years.
Also, simple logic tells you that the sun does not shine every day, and some places get very little sun, throughout the year.
Simple logic also tells you that the average home would need to be covered in solar cells, and that every bit of electricity generated would be needed to run the air conditioning or the furnace and the ligths, etc.
Where is the “excess” power to split the water molecule?
Also, is this practical in areas with bad hail problems?
Replacing a roof is expensive enough.
Hey, I am happy to hear this news.
You are absolutely wrong to assume that I would be against any new ideas.
However, just as my pet idea, the “hydrogen injection” system, into after-market vehicles, has problems to overcome —-
This idea will not be the total solution, either.
Lets do everything we can.
Drill here, drill now, AND research alternatives.
pmom
What “oil and gas subsidies”???
It is common practice to tax PROFITS and not tax Return of Capital!
Oil companies are allowed to take an immediate expense, against profits, for drilling costs. This is only fair, since many wells are DRY!
Also, oil revenue is not like interest off of a bond or a CD. Some day, the oil well will be worthelss, so there is a “depletion allowance” —
Other than these tax laws, what “subsidy” are you talking about?
If you put up an wind mill, and the wind never, ever blows, I have no problem with you expensing your construction costs all in one year.
“GMC70″ on energy subsidies –
“If the technology works, and is economically competitive, it won’t need gov’t to help it along….”
So we must assume you advocate eliminating the $15 billion in corporate welfare to the world’s most profitable corporations in the world, right?
“…more gov’t subsidies simply means more gov’t corruption.”
In the case of Cheney’s energy policy (which got us where we are today), you’re absolutely correct.
“GMC70″ whines –
“…all Pickens is really boosting is his stock portfolio . . .”
Why do you hate capitalism?
‘Why Hydrogen?’
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid203.php
‘Twenty Hydrogen Myths’ (PDF)
https://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
cosmos
Actually, your posts seem to support the idea of hydrogen or hydrogen/gasoline or hydrogen/diesel for automobiles.
(Otherwise, why all the space dedicated to “fleet turnover?)
I, too, think hydrogen is part of the answer, but STORAGE is the problem with hydrogen, for many reasons.
Safety, the fact that hydrogen makes steal very brittle, harming any storage tank, the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom, and might require expensive refrigeration or liquification for storage — these are all problems that must be answered.
So, to me, the best way to use hydrogen is to burn in IMMEDIATELY after it is produced!
I have no probelm with the market deciding witch energy too use, to to be fair in the market shouldn’t the gov pull the plug on the billions it gives the oil companies now?
Yeah, government nurtured “goes nowhere technology”, like the internet.
Funny how some good news.. possibly VERY good news comes out on an alternative energy source.. and the naysayers cannot even express a hope that this can role out to make America more prosperous and energy independent.
I split water as a twelve-year-old. It is the energy efficiency of this process that offers great hope.
Ahha… Hope.. that is what they have lost….
Tom
The oil companies pay BILLIONS of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes.
What does the government “give” to the oil companies?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/02/oil-subsidies-in-the-dock/
Franklin:
The US Army gives protection to “Economic Interests”
Your question is answered.
David
I refer you to another thread, on Brownback and Roberts taking flack for not wanting any breaks for wind, until expanded drilling rights were on the table.
On that thread, I pushed for, guess what? More research on “hydrogen injection” or hydrogen generators placed on existing automobiles as a way to improve gas mileage.
Ben, our resident cerebral narcissist, with some kind of “pride of authorship” problem, was very critical of that idea, and was not even honest in his attacks.
Liberals attack technology related to “clean coal”.
Liberals attack technology that will help burn gasoline or diesel in a cleaner, more fuel efficient manor.
It is the liberals who hate technology.
It is the liberals that hate industry.
It is the liberals that hate capitalism.
Yes, there are various shades of grey, there are some libs who understand that there is, so far, no replacement for oil.
However, read through these energy threads.
It is the libs who oppose new ideas to do a better job with fossil fuels.
The “weakness” that Ben found, with hydrogen injection into existing cars, is small and easy to overcome.
The real weakness, in this “new” idea, on this thread, is that: current solar cells SUCK! There is no way that the average home has enough space on the roof to power a house, AND power the electrolysis needed to “store” the hydrogen.
Also, Hydrogen storage is a problem. Small atom, and Hydrogen will harm the storage tank.
Tom
From YOUR link:
“Oil companies are already paying a staggering tax bill. In 2006, for instance, big-bad ExxonMobil faced an effective tax rate of 44 percent on a profit margin of around 11 percent, a figure that actually understates things because corporate revenues sooner or later find their way to oil company employees, contractors, shareholders, and those who do business with the same, and that revenue is taxed again via the personal income tax.
“So what?” you ask? Well, the more you tax “Big Oil,” the less return investors will get on money plowed into oil production. The less return on investment, the less investment there will be. Less investment equals less production, and less production equals higher prices. This is fact, not theory. Analysts at the Congressional Research Service report that the 1980 Crude Oil Windfall Profits tax reduced domestic oil production by 3-6 percent and increased oil imports by 8-16 percent for exactly that reason.”
LLVET
That “protection” is provided to every citizen.
We all benefit from that protection.
To me, there is no substantive difference between a transfer to a company in the form of a direct subsidy, and the provision in tax law which allows a company to avoid the transfer of funds from a company to the government in the form ot taxes; the company ends up with more money, regardless.
IDCs, for example; not a problem with me for allowing a direct expensing of IDCs on dry holes. If, however, there is a producing well (or producing wells) then the IDCs should be expensed over the projected life of the well. Depletion allowance makes little to no sense to me any more. Yes, I am very aware that the depletion allowance is not what it once was, more restricted in eligibility; but, is it even needed? I acknowledge the arcane nature of this, but why provide a depletion allowance (theoretically, the same idea as the depreciation allowance on capital equipment, the purpose for which was and is to create a pool of money from which replacement equipment was to be purchased) given the higher dividends/stock repurchases by the oil companies and a drop, in real terms, of expenses incurred for additional exploration. Given this, from which one might infer that there aren’t any new finds out there in the minds of the companies, why have a depletion allowance?
Yes Franklin: and we all pay for said protection.
You asked what the government did for oil. Your question is answered.
VT
I use the example of an immediate, fixed annuity.
In that example, there is an “exclusion allowance” which allows for the fact that each payment is both interest and principal.
This is justified, to me, in that the annuity has a finite life.
Not an exact comparison, to be sure.
However, income producing vehicles like bonds and CD’s where the principal is not being invaded, should be treated differently than in situations where you are, “eating your seed corn” so to speak.
I agree that the fixed annuity example isn’t an exact comparison. However, by spreading recovery of IDCs over the “fixed life” of a producing well, are we not approaching this as a fixed annuity, so to speak, with a ratable portion of the IDCs expensed annually similar to the exclusion allowance?
And, if you were making reference to the depletion allowance, then my imperfect analogy to the allowance for depreciation seems more logical to me than your annuity example. If I’m way off here in understanding your point, please advise.
BS Paul. I was perfectly honest – as was the TV’s “Does it Work” analysis. It was your YouTube clip touting ‘energized water’ that was dishonest.
And I have no “pride of authorship” problem with it either.
An “improvement” of gas mileage from 41 mpg to 31 mpg (what the test found) is not very impressive. In fact, it is NEGATIVE!
And Paul – you were touting just that water ‘thing’ that Channel 3 debunked.
VT – perhaps the best analogy on the write-offs is a sort of expanded Sec 179 immediate costing.
“So, to me, the best way to use hydrogen is to burn in IMMEDIATELY after it is produced!”
Then what do you use as the energy source to PRODUCE the hydrogen?
Guess when we’re driving electric cars, won’t need the catalytic converters nor platinum for them.
Franklin, why didnt you post the parts of the article that listed the oil subsidies?
Hydrogen can be stored ‘indirectly’ in the form of hydrides. So, if a means can be made to generate H2 we might have something interesting. Direct solar (which would requite two photons) would be ideal. Nuclear is another that I find interesting.
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/us-oil-subsidies-need-to-go-003140.php
VT
The problem I see with your idea is that we can not always be sure of the “productive life” of a producing well.
Better to treat all drilling the same.
VT
My arguments, in favor of IDC rules, is that so many wells are dry.
You want to make a distinction between producing wells and dry holes.
I appreciate the idea.
You at least recognize the reason for the current law.
How can you “spread” costs over future production if their is NO production?
I have only attempted to show that oil and gas exploration is an area vastly different from most other business enterprises.
The oil industry pays a huge amount of money, in Federal, State and Local taxes.
Would your proposal increase or decrease the total tax revenue that the industry pays?
I think that we have found the most efficient way to tax oil and gas. I think if we make too many changes, to the current system, tax revenues would decline due to production declines.
VT
And YES, my annuity example related to the depletion allowance.
Ben
The guy that BOUGHT the hydrogen injection system said he thought the O2 and fuel sensors were the problem.
That is an easy problem to fix.
You remind me of Thomas Edison, Ben.
You are not stupid, but your pride will allow Tesla and Westinghouse to run rings around you!
Tom
Do you wish to “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs”??
Any discussion of tax law, related to oil and gas, should START with an understanding of how much that industry pays, in taxes.
Any CHANGE in the current system should have the result of increasing production and increasing total tax revenues.
The world’s energy is someday going to come from somewhere other than fossil fuels. That is a simple fact that cannot be denied. The only question now is do we begin preparing and transition now, or do we let the problems multiply and further disrupt an already troubled world.
As a Saudi oil minister said: The stone age did not end because they ran out of stones.
The stone age did not end because they taxed stones.
The stone age did not end because they outlawed stones.
Henry Ford did not outlaw horses.
The Wright Brothers did not outlaw the automobile.
I am all in favor of alternatives.
However, stop messing with what we ALREADY have!
Sure it will Paul!
:)
I’m not too excited about MIT’s “breakthrough” either. But, I do think photo voltaic energy is at the point where you can use it efficiently, if you can afford the installation price. My cousin in europe has an electric bill of $15 a month. That’s because the government allows her to sell excess energy back to the power company at the market rate.
I don’t think expensing ‘dry holes’ is considered preferential treatment.
But if the cost of bringing in a producing well, is the risk of hitting a dry hole, then there is an argument to be made that the dry hole is part of the cost of the producing well and should be expensed over the life of the producing well.
Not sure any more if R&D for other industries is currently allowed to be written off immediately, but I suspect not.
That would be a pretty accurate comparison, r&d does not always result in a success.
Phantom
The oil and gas business is full of partnerships and joint ventures.
The problem with “expensiing” over several years is that you might have hundreds of partners in on one drilling rig, with one or more, corporate, “general partners”.
You are actually giving the IRS some paperwork headaches, for not much revenue gain.
Exactly Paul,
I’ve ‘invested’ in six wells, four dry or not feasable. Sold my interest in the producers within a month. Many investers do. One went dry within a year, the other on the Arbucle near Parsons is still producing.
All in all, I’m about even in my great oil venture, only because of the tax code though. If you look at the holes currentl being punch in Kansas today, ‘big oil’ has very little to do with them. Mostly little guys, like me, investing.
Even without ‘net metering’ home-based solar could be interesting. In general, when it is hot and sunny it is hot and sunny (DOH!). So, if one could just run the AC full blast on solar the savings might add up.
I don’t have solar replacing the grid at this point – just supplementing it.
This is a major breakthrough any way you look at it. With new technology in storing hydrogen, and the inexpensive way of breaking down water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, home closed loop systems become a distinct possibility. Combine that with home sized wind generators, and enough capacity to back-feed the grid means reduced generating necessary to keep the system tight. Less generating necessary means less plants needed. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Electric cars and Hydrogen powered cars, recharged by the excess home stored energy, and a massive conservation program, and there would be no loss of quality in everyday life. Pipe dream? I think not.
O, and KFG is correct: Pickens whole project revolves around the aquifer, and his controlling it so he can pipe it to Dallas-Fort Worth. Links abound . . . find them.
Not enough room on the roof, put them on a south facing wall as well. Keep the heat off the house same time you produce energy.
JM
There is no new technology yet, to store hydrogen, is there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
Actually, frankiln. I posted two links the other day concerning new developments in h2 storage. Both linked to systems that could be used in cars. The Wiki article is a bit obsolete already.
Here’s another one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=hydrogen+storage
Some of the new developments exceed what the standards set by the government call for. While much still needs to be worked out, the technology is there.
#
Phantom
Posted August 4, 2008 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
Not enough room on the roof, put them on a south facing wall as well. Keep the heat off the house same time you produce energy.
===================================================
Put water filled tubes behind the panels, and use it to heat the house in winter. Temp stable solar panels would heat the water in winter.
Franklin, that hearse will be electric or hydrogen powered in 10 years or less. Count on it:-)
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C6941/
BMW is about to accelerate its jump into the hydrogen game.
The automaker announced on Tuesday that it would start rolling out hydrogen-fueled vehicles within two years, not the four-year window that had been previously announced. The vehicles will have two fuel tanks, one for hydrogen and one for standard gasoline.
The 7-Series will be the first group of cars to sport the new hydrogen capability. The entire BWM line will be hydrogen-powered eventually.
This announcement comes on the heels of BMW’s decision to power its V12 engine with liquid hydrogen and the decision of other automakers to embrace water-emitting hydrogen as a vehicle fuel.
=======================================================
California was delivered six hydrogen powered cars this year. They are limited to very select areas as there are only a few hydrogen stations. But it’s a major start, and, in my opinion, ranks with the public availability of the gas powered engine in the form of the automobile.
Franklin Posted August 4, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“The stone age did not end because they taxed stones.
The stone age did not end because they outlawed stones.
Henry Ford did not outlaw horses.
The Wright Brothers did not outlaw the automobile.
I am all in favor of alternatives.
However, stop messing with what we ALREADY have!”
Quite simply brilliant!!! And oh so true an observation.
I had forgotten about these they are so old. Basic research can help lay a foundation for interesting applications.
Cobalt bonding to hydride-hydrogen from a water source:
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/article.asp?doi=C39750000684
Cobalt bonding to di-oxygen:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/inocaj/1979/18/i01/f-pdf/f_ic50191a027.pdf
Just shows that basic academic research just might have value.
When she arrived she surprised me with the form of wanting to leave right now. Mind you, we walked The stone age, and it’s a very big steep hill. I joined up with Henry Ford in Barcelona.
One of the things an early mentor of mine told me was, the stupidest saying of all time is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Well, the energy situation in this country is broke, and it needs serious fixing. Oil ain’t the long term answer by a long shot.
Very true JMW. And if we were to give it the kind of effort we did in going to the moon we could do it.
Go up to the Cosmosphere in Hutch. Watch the film of the rockets exploding on the launch pad as you also hear JFK saying we will go to the moon. Back then we believed in America and our ability to accomplish great things. No more I guess …
“We can’t win with eggheads and minorities, alone”
Paul Begala.
Libs, especially those who do not want to drill for oil, are EGGHEADS!
I am glad you walked into this trap, the “don’t drill” mentality is killing the Democrats:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjc3YzNkMWY2ZmMxY2M2MmQzZWRlNzE4MDA3ZWJkMjc=
By the way, Obama has received over $400,000.00 from oil executives.
Obama will go for more drilling than Pelosi wants, but not as much as we need.
Drill here, drill now, or vote Republican and drill next year!
Ben
When Kennedy said we would go to the moon, Kennedy did not tell people to quit using gasoline.
When the Wright brothers learned to fly, they did not ask for automobiles to be outlawed.
When Henry Ford started building cars, he did not ask for horses to be outlawed.
Your analogy fails the logic test.
Do whatever the hell you want to do, Ben, just quit telling the rest of us what we can and can not do!
Or believe in America’s technologicl greatness and find better ways. Just like we did when JFK expressed his insane crazy dream about going to the moon.
You are a shill for the past Paulie “franklin”
NO ONE is listening to you.
“When Henry Ford started building cars, he did not ask for horses to be outlawed.”
No but the horse and tack industry DID get several laws in to try and kill the automobile.
They failed.
So will you.
Paul – JFK gave usa goal and we set out to achieve it. Back then we were not in the kind of crisis we are facing now but with Sputnik we did have something to worry about.
Mwanwhile we also did fundamental research such as that I linked above (7:47 pm) that helped improve our understanding of the interactions between small molecules (like H2O, O2, H2, CO) and metal surfaces. That, in turn, helps give a foundation for some of the further work we see today including catalytic reactions.
Go ahead and totally deplete our remaining oil. Then the problem will just be that much worse.
#
Franklin
Posted August 4, 2008 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
Ben
When Kennedy said we would go to the moon, Kennedy did not tell people to quit using gasoline.
When the Wright brothers learned to fly, they did not ask for automobiles to be outlawed.
When Henry Ford started building cars, he did not ask for horses to be outlawed.
Your analogy fails the logic test.
Do whatever the hell you want to do, Ben, just quit telling the rest of us what we can and can not do!
=====================================================
That thinking is what got us into this trouble in the first place. No one is saying don’t use oil. What we ARE saying is get off the oil teat and find find workable alternatives. If we don’t, and the oil is gone, then what, we will be stuck back in the stone age. I, for one, want to leave our future generations a better place than what we have now. You want to leave them empty oil reserves.
Damn, you republicans simply cant think outside the box at all. And you have the balls to tell us to shut up? As I said many times: There is a major problem with the sciences in this country, and it’s you people that are trying to stamping out those who want to change that. You would be happy with smog, burning rivers, and polluted land. And if it wasn’t for us, you would still have them in spades.
We can do both, use the oil and search for alternative.
But let’s not shut off the spigot before alternative energy is viable.