3 Things

Three things I'll probably never see in my lifetime:

(in order of diminishing probability)

humans set foot on Mars

Peace in the mid east

Cubs win world series

Three thing I might see in my lifetime:

(in order of increasing likelihood)

6th extinction

widespread adoption of non carbon based energy sources

woman president

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by S on February 22, 2014 at 1:18pm

I disagree about the renewable stuff. We're just on the verge of having cost effective production using wind/solar. The problem is that both of those are intermittent and there's no effective production level way of storing energy produced and then using it when it's cloudy/at night/calm out.

Mike Zumwalt said:

We've had the technology for solar and wind since the 70's but keeps getting squashed by big oil.

I'd vote for a women President as long as it's not just a prop to show the world we elected one.

I voted for Obama and it made history but the underlying racism associated has made the govt. a clusterpuck.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on February 22, 2014 at 1:25pm

Agreed. We need a battery or some sort of energy storage breakthrough.

S said:

I disagree about the renewable stuff. We're just on the verge of having cost effective production using wind/solar. The problem is that both of those are intermittent and there's no effective production level way of storing energy produced and then using it when it's cloudy/at night/calm out.

Mike Zumwalt said:

We've had the technology for solar and wind since the 70's but keeps getting squashed by big oil.

I'd vote for a women President as long as it's not just a prop to show the world we elected one.

I voted for Obama and it made history but the underlying racism associated has made the govt. a clusterpuck.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Stahlman on February 22, 2014 at 1:26pm

Renewable energy is already mainstream and commercially viable. More KWs of renewable power sources are being brought online each year in the US than non-renewable. It is only a matter of time until before it overtakes the latter. Not fast enough in my opinion. And costs have come way down in the last couple years. For example, solar prices have dropped considerably since Chinese manufacturers have flooded the market. I've heard prices are about $3-5 per watt installed cost.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on February 22, 2014 at 2:00pm

It's mainstream and commericially viable to a point. But there's still an open problem with how to manage energy generation and utilization once renewables get past about 15% of the energy production on the grid. Stuff like how to handle base load (people still need power at night and when there's no wind), how to deal with imbalances between production and utilization and shifting or storing energy efficiently at large scales. Until those things get resolved, we're not going to see large scale renewable usage unless people shift their expectations of the power supply and are willing to accept intermittent and random blackouts and brownouts.

Ryan Stahlman said:

Renewable energy is already mainstream and commercially viable. More KWs of renewable power sources are being brought online each year in the US than non-renewable. It is only a matter of time until before it overtakes the latter. Not fast enough in my opinion. And costs have come way down in the last couple years. For example, solar prices have dropped considerably since Chinese manufacturers have flooded the market. I've heard prices are about $3-5 per watt installed cost.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on February 22, 2014 at 5:12pm

I remember there was a lot of talk about a nationwide smart grid system some time ago, the cost of which, according to some estimates, would approach about half a trillion dollars over 20 years. But who wants to consider that sort of investment when there might be some other disruptive solution right around the corner. I'm betting there will be some sort of hybrid biological / chemical / electronic energy storage solution devised in the next decade or so.

I have to respect Mr. Obama for his efforts on the ACA but the number 1 problem is always the economy. If I were in his position back in 2009, I would have launched a national effort to make America a green economy and drive OPEC into oblivion. Had Gore won in 2000, I'm sure we'd be much further down that road today.

S said:

It's mainstream and commericially viable to a point. But there's still an open problem with how to manage energy generation and utilization once renewables get past about 15% of the energy production on the grid. Stuff like how to handle base load (people still need power at night and when there's no wind), how to deal with imbalances between production and utilization and shifting or storing energy efficiently at large scales. Until those things get resolved, we're not going to see large scale renewable usage unless people shift their expectations of the power supply and are willing to accept intermittent and random blackouts and brownouts.

Ryan Stahlman said:

Renewable energy is already mainstream and commercially viable. More KWs of renewable power sources are being brought online each year in the US than non-renewable. It is only a matter of time until before it overtakes the latter. Not fast enough in my opinion. And costs have come way down in the last couple years. For example, solar prices have dropped considerably since Chinese manufacturers have flooded the market. I've heard prices are about $3-5 per watt installed cost.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on February 22, 2014 at 5:20pm

Obama has been fought tooth and nail on every small thing he's tried to do to advance green technology.

Heard of Solyndra?

As to 'should have done A instead of B'--- I don't think Obama walks on water, but I think the decision to refocus the public on something that didn't seem to be a top priority at the time that everyone believed we were heading into a 1930s-style depression was an extremely shrewd move. We got into that situation because people got scared and stopped spending money; banks were folding left and right, creditors were rolling up the carpet.... we were a hair-trigger away from a run on the banks, devaluation of the currency, all-out economic collapse. Getting people talking about something other than the economy was absolutely what was needed at that time.

Joe Guzzardo said:

I remember there was a lot of talk about a nationwide smart grid system some time ago, the cost of which, according to some estimates, would approach about half a trillion dollars over 20 years. But who wants to consider that sort of investment when there might be some other disruptive solution right around the corner. I'm betting there will be some sort of hybrid biological / chemical / electronic energy storage solution devised in the next decade or so.

I have to respect Mr. Obama for his efforts on the ACA but the number 1 problem is always the economy. If I were in his position back in 2009, I would have launched a national effort to make America a green economy and drive OPEC into oblivion. Had Gore won in 2000, I'm sure we'd be much further down that road today.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on February 22, 2014 at 5:52pm

Sorry, I disagree. It's "always the economy stupid", not that I was directing that at you. Sure the financial crisis needed to be healed and they tried to solve it by throwing an awful lot of money at it. But the economy is still struggling. How do we solve that? How do we put Americans back to work? Low tech factories are long gone. The only way we can ever re-assert our prowess is through innovation and no one knows where that will come from. Solyndra was a failed attempt and there will be many more before we get there. Without risk there is no reward.

For example, consider the ITER project or the Large Hadron Collider in Europe. A lot of the talent that used to be in our backyard is now there. We do have the NIF project in California, approaching a billion dollars in cost. Originally, Texas would have been the site of the LHC, but that project was cancelled because of it's high cost. Unfortunately, most of the big problems cost big money and only governments are capable of funding such moon shot projects these days.

The R and D generated by these projects will provide economic benefits that will pay for themselves many times over and not just for us, but for the entire world. For proof, look at NASA.

h' 1.0 said:

Obama has been fought tooth and nail on every small thing he's tried to do to advance green technology.

Heard of Solyndra?

As to 'should have done A instead of B'--- I don't think Obama walks on water, but I think the decision to refocus the public on something that didn't seem to be a top priority at the time that everyone believed we were heading into a 1930s-style depression was an extremely shrewd move. We got into that situation because people got scared and stopped spending money; banks were folding left and right, creditors were rolling up the carpet.... we were a hair-trigger away from a run on the banks, devaluation of the currency, all-out economic collapse. Getting people talking about something other than the economy was absolutely what was needed at that time.

Joe Guzzardo said:

I remember there was a lot of talk about a nationwide smart grid system some time ago, the cost of which, according to some estimates, would approach about half a trillion dollars over 20 years. But who wants to consider that sort of investment when there might be some other disruptive solution right around the corner. I'm betting there will be some sort of hybrid biological / chemical / electronic energy storage solution devised in the next decade or so.

I have to respect Mr. Obama for his efforts on the ACA but the number 1 problem is always the economy. If I were in his position back in 2009, I would have launched a national effort to make America a green economy and drive OPEC into oblivion. Had Gore won in 2000, I'm sure we'd be much further down that road today.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on February 22, 2014 at 8:10pm

I think both my points were missed, but I'll say that Solyndra was offered as an illustration of how fierce the opposition is (do you recall the effort to blow that up into a Savings and Loan/Lewinsky sized "scandal" that would get Obama impeached?), and the unfortunate reality that the approach you suggest can be undertaken very incrementally at best in the current climate.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on February 22, 2014 at 8:14pm

Solar and wind are of course variable but storage for home and commercial uses are totally feasible. We also need redundant systems much like a back up generator.

I was in the HUGE power grid failure of 2003? that went from NYC to Detroit to Toronto and even down to Toledo.

We had no power for 3 days in the middle of August.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on February 22, 2014 at 9:25pm

Grids are expensive and vulnerable to many threats, solar activity among them. Japan has proposed locating power plants on the moon and transmitting the power back to earth. A nationwide smart grid system will cost upwards of half a trillion dollars. I wonder how that cost compares to the Japanese idea. One additional benefit, though, once we've mastered the technology to build and maintain power plants on the moon, reaching Mars will be a lot easier. Which is a good thing considering that will be just about the same time we toast this planet, making it imperative to move on to greener pastures.

Mike Zumwalt said:

Solar and wind are of course variable but storage for home and commercial uses are totally feasible. We also need redundant systems much like a back up generator.

I was in the HUGE power grid failure of 2003? that went from NYC to Detroit to Toronto and even down to Toledo.

We had no power for 3 days in the middle of August.