Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:news:[email hidden]....
> Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> better off economically and environmentally.Quoted message said:Quoted message said:By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?
Quoted message said:Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
to credits for new technology, etc., etc. All the same things we are
starting to do now.How about jail sentences for people who use more gasoline than you believe
they should? Why is it that you fascists always manage to believe that your
view of the world is the right view and you need to punish everyone else
that doens't hold your view?Quoted message said:There was no reason in the world we needed to be
driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
except that gas was cheap and we could.And of course the small think that it took 70 years to develop the
industrial capability to make things with enough accuracy to make them as
efficient as they are today. Oh, that's right - you bozos who can't actually
do anything yourself believe that everyone else could do it back in the
1800's.
What are you getting at? While Detroit was making giant, gas guzzling
tanks, Germany, France, Italy and Japan were making compacts. And
what do you mean that I can't do anything myself? How would you
know? As a matter of fact, I do everything myself -- I even know how
to plaster. You try getting a nice sanded finish!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
on energy independence and got pooh-poohed.I notice you didn't actually quote Carter.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh,
that's
right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
afraid to write it.Quoted message said:Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
not knowing anything. Is this some form of Tourrettes?The problem is that your ideas aren't backed by any real knowledge and you
think they are. Why is it that you don't realize that is a fools way of
doing things?
What, to you, is real knowledge? A PhD in solar technology? You're
not going to get that on this NG. And the fact is that many fools, as
you put it, were responsible for huge technological advances. Kennedy
and Rosevelt come to mind --- both created programs that invented
dramatic new technology. All they had was a vision -- although
Rosevelt had a note from Einstein about the potential for a fission
bomb. And Kennedy was chasing the Russians in to space, but in any
event, both made the effort to advance the state of the art and didn't
sit on their thumbs listening to naysayers.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the
time.
They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
could be more than marginally improved?Quoted message said:There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
gasses.OK, what?
Quoted message said:That is stone-wheel technology. And not withstanding the fact
that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
support.http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm.No we HAVEN'T had any "recent improvements". The "improvements" have all
been microscopic in function and slight in economics. As I pointed out
before - solar cells cost more to produce than they generally return in
electricity in their lifetime. Why do you believe that to be somehow
superior to anything else?
More than doubling the efficiency of the common solar cell is a
significant improvement, unless "significant" means something
different to you. Cost of production will decrease as production
increases -- which it will because of the cost of oil. The whack-o
environmentalists also will help drive demand and production.
Quoted message said:
Do you suppose PG & E's test solar generators in the Mojave Desert were just
kidding when they used steam generators instead of solar cells? Or perhaps
you want to believe that they're much dumber than you are?
Man, what is it with you -- of course you use the most efficient
technology. If you can boil water with sunlight, then boil the
f****** water. Make steam. Turn turbines. That ain't gonna happen
in the PNW. We do have Bonneville -- built by FDR along with the
other communists with musical support from Woody Guthrie . Or was FDR
a fascists? He did ration gas -- among other things.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:The DOE came from our nu-ca-lar program --
and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan Project
could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology.Of course they've been trying to get funding for that for 40 years while
Democrats have been putting 20 times as much into their own pet projects
such as Harry Reid's $61 million Nevada "special transportation projects"
stuff etc.And don't get the idea that I'm implying that Republicans aren't equally to
blame.The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you yammer
on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.
Then educate us, Thomas, please. All I hear from you is nay. If you
have something better than the status quo, please share it with us.
The status quo obviously is not working, so I only want to hear if you
have a plan. -- Jay Beattie.