Political Move Cave-In

[rolling7]

I've been telling people since back in the 60's that NASA is a waste of money.
For over 40 years they have spent, on the average, more than $500 million a year.
Just to think if that money had beeh spent on research and development of solar power, today we would have efficient and reliable home and office renewable energy.
Why was this not done? Because the government gave in to corporation that made it know that solar power is un-sellable after the initial outlay. No sale = no tax. Keep in mind JFK and the Dem. were in control in those days.

 

[kokonut]

What do all these companies have in common? They're companies trying to turn a profit, and I doubt they have the sort of research facilities necessary.

To clarify, I mean more funding and research at our universities and national laboratories. Currently, our top talent and research money is being used for stupid shit like this: U.S. Army Tests Secret Hypersonic Weapon | Fox News

Maybe if we spent more time and effort on projects that would benefit mankind, as opposed to how to better kill ourselves, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Chu’s comments on the unexpected “tsunami” that hit Solyndra are also troubling. The OMB e-mail shows that at least one arm of the government was aware that Wall Street was quickly souring on solar energy and that the tsunami that swept the industry should not have been such a surprise.

Steven Chu’s Solyndra testimony: Misleading jobs stats and missing context - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post

As for research facilities, $1.2 billion dollar federal loan guarantee was given to another failing solar company, mired in shareholder lawsuits:

SunPower is looking to hire 200 people at its research facility near San Francisco. The $1.2 billion devided by 200 gives us $6 million dollars invested by taxpayers per job gained.

"If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain," writes Human Events.com. SunPower, which is a public company and traded on Wall Street (SPWR-NASDAQ), is $820 million in debt.

This makes Solyndra look good : News : NorthwestOhio.com

Trying to turn a profit?

 

[TWA]

I've been telling people since back in the 60's that NASA is a waste of money.
For over 40 years they have spent, on the average, more than $500 million a year.
Just to think if that money had beeh spent on research and development of solar power, today we would have efficient and reliable home and office renewable energy.
Why was this not done? Because the government gave in to corporation that made it know that solar power is un-sellable after the initial outlay. No sale = no tax. Keep in mind JFK and the Dem. were in control in those days.

Of course, you're one of those cranky old guys who looks up at the stars and just sees a bunch of blinking lights.

$500 million? Is that all? (I'd wager it's more, but even if it's more, that's still a pittance.)

Do you know how much money the Army wastes on developing its toys? We're talking billions of wasted dollars for completely scrapped/failed projects. The crusader self-propelled howitzer ended up being a bust after years of sinking billions into it. That's just for starters. There's a whole treasure trove of wasted spending in the Department of Defense.

And you're whining about $500 million? :roll:

 

[kokonut]

Like I said before, we don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem.

 

[rolling7]

Of course, you're one of those cranky old guys who looks up at the stars and just sees a bunch of blinking lights.

$500 million? Is that all? (I'd wager it's more, but even if it's more, that's still a pittance.)

Do you know how much money the Army wastes on developing its toys? We're talking billions of wasted dollars for completely scrapped/failed projects. The crusader self-propelled howitzer ended up being a bust after years of sinking billions into it. That's just for starters. There's a whole treasure trove of wasted spending in the Department of Defense.

And you're whining about $500 million? :roll:

It is an average. Back in the 60's, that was almost unheard of.
Even today, $1 wasted is $1tooooo much.
Using a cost-benefit ratio, NASA is a loser.
BTW: in right here in Houston, we got a problem.

 

[TWA]

It is an average. Back in the 60's, that was almost unheard of.
Even today, $1 wasted is $1tooooo much.
Using a cost-benefit ratio, NASA is a loser.
BTW: in right here in Houston, we got a problem.

Cost-benefit of what? NASA isn't supposed to turn a profit. NASA's purpose is to explore what is beyond this earth and help to further our understanding of the cosmos (and thus, our own position in it. I can see why that bothers some theist-centric people who would prefer to get all their existential knowledge from books written thousands of years ago). Just cause there's no profit to be made, doesn't mean it is worthless. The dreams and imagination that NASA has instilled in generations of Americans, and others, is priceless. That is beside the point of the scientific advancements that NASA has contributed humanity, which are also priceless.

 

[deafskeptic]

Burj Khalifa?

yes

 

[darkdog]

I disagree. Science has already found plenty of viable alternatives, or at least the pathways to those alternatives. More federal funding and less fraudulent government regulation will help speed that process up considerably.

I'm not so sure more federal funding is going to help matters much. There are diminishing returns. There are only so many scientists qualified to do such research and it simply takes time for the science to evolve. There will be some avenues that seem promising for a while until they hit a brick wall and stop making progress (one example- room temperature superconductors). On the other hand, some unexpected discovery can lead to sudden bursts of progress. I don't think you can really speed it up very much by throwing huge sums of money at it. If you try that, you'll just see scientists earning more and more money and labs getting more and more lavish equipment they don't really need.

It is large corporations that have a vested interest in keeping oil supreme that are the major barriers to clean, sustainable energy.

Of course large corporations have an interest in their product being successful in the market, but they are not immune from the phenomenon of disrupting technologies and creative destruction. It's not uncommon for large companies to have the rug swept out from under them by some small company doing amazing things. There's not much a large company can do to avoid this except to be innovative, like Apple, or perhaps can call up their favorite politician and suggest some regulations that sound good but are designed to hurt small competitors while barely making a dent on the large companies. This, of course, is known as crony capitalism and it's why we shouldn't blindly cheer on any regulation that comes along.

Their major problem with clean, renewable energy is that the more widespread it becomes, the less profitable it becomes. Let's say solar panel technology finally reaches a point where it is capable of sustaining us (this is a looonnggg ways off, but let's just be hypothetical). There's plenty to be made short-term from the installation and conversion of new technology, but for the long term, there is nothing to be made. The minute the last solar panel is installed. . . poof goes the market. Poof goes one of the backbones of the world economy. That's great for the vast majority of the world's population, who struggle to secure energy, but it's bad for the people who control that market. Non-renewable = potential for infinite growth (at least until we run out of oil). Renewable = no long term growth.

I disagree with your assumptions. Supposing solar panels do turn out to be the mainstream energy source, there will be no such thing as "the last solar panel", at least until the next energy revolution to replace solar. They don't last forever, so they have to be maintained and replaced. Even if they did last forever, then assuming no Terminator-like scenarios, demand will always rise. Population will increase, standards of living will increase, and the desire to continually progress will not go away. I envision a future where if I'm in the mood for Italian for dinner, I don't go to the Italian place down the street for dinner- I take a half hour trip to Italy, enjoy my meal, and then take another half hour trip back. I envision a future where trips to the moon and beyond are commonplace. No matter what our energy arrangement is, there will always be demand for more. To say otherwise would be like someone in the early 90s saying that nobody will ever need more than 10 GB hard drive space. 10 GBs seemed infinite back then but nowadays, it's tiny.

There will always be room for infinite growth and whoever comes up with the next energy revolution will be filthy rich.

 

[darkdog]

What about government discouraging independent efforts to use green energy. Really wish I could remember this billionaire's name, he was originally from India and he wanted to set up an alternative to gas in America which was ethanol and even offered to use his own money to set up such gas stations and the government stepped in and refused to give him permission to do so because it would have threatened the imported oil trade.

Can't really comment until I know more details.

 

[kokonut]

That reminds me, DD, about the hard drive comment.....


“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” (1899 Charles H. Duell, the Commissioner at U.S. Office of Patents).

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” - (Thomas Watson, chairman, of IBM, 1943 on seeing the first mainframe computer).

“Computers in the future may perhaps only weigh 1.5 tons.” (Popular Mechanics forecasting the development of computer technology, 1949).

“But what . . . is it good for?” - (Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968 commenting on the microchip).

“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” - (Ken Olson,

“640K (of computer memory) ought to be enough for anybody.” - (Bill Gates, 1981.)

“I see no advantage whatsoever to the graphical user interface.” (Bill Gates, 1983.)
Today’s GUI is used all the time in all computers that comes with a screen. It allows users to “multi-task” on the computer screen while operating several computer programs at the same time.

Another famous last word was when Western Union in 1876 chastised the invention of the telephone as having “too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication.”

 

[jillio]

Again with the quoting. Polly want a cracker?

 

[rolling7]

Cost-benefit of what? NASA isn't supposed to turn a profit. NASA's purpose is to explore what is beyond this earth and help to further our understanding of the cosmos (and thus, our own position in it. I can see why that bothers some theist-centric people who would prefer to get all their existential knowledge from books written thousands of years ago). Just cause there's no profit to be made, doesn't mean it is worthless. The dreams and imagination that NASA has instilled in generations of Americans, and others, is priceless. That is beside the point of the scientific advancements that NASA has contributed humanity, which are also priceless.

Tell that to the people all over America who can't afford their electric bill.

 

[jillio]

Tell that to the people all over America who can't afford their electric bill.

You are rambling nonsensically again.

 

[rolling7]

You are rambling nonsensically again.

It IS my thread but I'm nice enough to allow you to post whatever hate you want too.

 

[jillio]

It IS my thread but I'm nice enough to allow you to post whatever hate you want too.

Tht wasn't hate. It was concern. You seem to having trouble forming cohesive thoughts again.

 

[rolling7]

Tht wasn't hate. It was concern. You seem to having trouble forming cohesive thoughts again.

You seem to lack understanding that when you post a thought here, the person on the other end gets to decide how to take it. If you think you are not being hateful and attacking with your posts, you got another thought coming.

 

[jillio]

You seem to lack understanding that when you post a thought here, the person on the other end gets to decide how to take it. If you think you are not being hateful and attacking with your posts, you got another thought coming.

At least I have a thought coming.

 

[kokonut]

Yay!
Obstacles could delay Northern Gateway pipeline: Pat Carney

 

[Beowulf]

This conclusion is inescapable: now you are cheering those you quote just because. Wow.

 

[rolling7]

Just because your side gets to cheer when Cain and Perry shoot themself in the foot, the other side gets to do the same when Obama does the same.