Deal with Climate Reality as it Unfolds....

[Michael Hardner]

I find this discussion pretty interesting, but you have to admit it's pretty much all supposition. There has to be the spark of inspiration, no matter when the discovery happens and that can't be predicted right ?

[TimG]

I find this discussion pretty interesting, but you have to admit it's pretty much all supposition. There has to be the spark of inspiration, no matter when the discovery happens and that can't be predicted right ?

A lot of technological innovation is inevitable once the prerequisites are available. The Write Brothers were the first to get a plane to fly but if they hadn't someone else would have in a few years.

There are likely a few inventions which are unique insights by a brilliant person. I can't think of any at the moment.

Edited May 30, 2012 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

I find this discussion pretty interesting, but you have to admit it's pretty much all supposition. There has to be the spark of inspiration, no matter when the discovery happens and that can't be predicted right ?

Sorta...the "political" breakthrough desired by all the GW alarmists will occur when hard core economics provides the real "inspiration" to innovate, not just sappy posters of polar bears water skiing in winter.

[TimG]

Sorta...the "political" breakthrough desired by all the GW alarmists will occur when hard core economics provides the real "inspiration" to innovate, not just sappy posters of polar bears water skiing in winter.

I find it ironic that GW alarmists keep calling for the 'moonshot' program to kick start alternative energy since the moon program was ultimately canned as an expensive waste of time.

[bush_cheney2004]

I find it ironic that GW alarmists keep calling for the 'moonshot' program to kick start alternative energy since the moon program was ultimately canned as an expensive waste of time.

Agreed....they are the true deniers. Even after telling them over and over again that we get it and understand their alarmist GW narrative, we presently choose to do nothing about it save for the continued adaptations which are a hallmark of human development.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorta...the "political" breakthrough desired by all the GW alarmists will occur when hard core economics provides the real "inspiration" to innovate, not just sappy posters of polar bears water skiing in winter.

Already done... it will be a great test of stubborn idealists when people keep using oil even though it's more expensive. Will you be one of those ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Already done... it will be a great test of stubborn idealists when people keep using oil even though it's more expensive. Will you be one of those ?

Of course....energy densities don't give a damn about such idealism. Gasoline is still cheaper than Diet Coke.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course....energy densities don't give a damn about such idealism. Gasoline is still cheaper than Diet Coke.

And when it's more than solar, you'll be the only car on the road that still has a tailpipe... if only to irritate the hippies... Am I right ?

[bush_cheney2004]

And when it's more than solar, you'll be the only car on the road that still has a tailpipe... if only to irritate the hippies... Am I right ?

No...classic car owners don't exist just to irritate plug-in hybrid fans. You wanna ban riding horses too?

[Wild Bill]

The layered nature of technological development is really illustrated by chips because each generation of chips are used to make the equipment used to build the next generation. This means that even if you went back in time 30 years and gave the engineers at Intel the plans to the latest CPU it would not help them much since they do not have to the tools to build it. In fact, it is likely impossible to represent the design of a modern chip with the tools available in the 80s so they could not even read it.

Sometimes the reverse is true, Tim! As you might remember, I build and repair guitar amplifiers. Back in the late 70's a company called Ibanez designed and marketed a foot pedal overdrive unit for guitar, basically putting a mammoth amount of extra gain from a dual op amp into the amplifier for a specific rock and roll sound.

They stopped production for a decade or so but the device was still so popular they started up production again. The odd thing was that many guitarists claimed the new units didn't sound as good!

Now since their market was musicians the initial reaction was that it was all a psychological effect and not based in physics but the sheer number of complaints forced them to look closer at the problem. They were building the new units not only identical in every respect one could think of but also many of the same workers on the line were involved.

Eventually, they discovered that the problem was the new production specifications of the dual-op amp!Over the years manufacturing techniques for making the IC had improved in order to make the device have better distortion figures. This was fine for a hifi application but in this case the electric guitar signal was SUPPOSED to be distorted! When you amplified the signal through a new version of the op amp the signal did not distort in exactly the same manner as the old ones!

There was nothing that could be done. Chips are devices that can only be made in huge volumes. Ibanez could not possibly order enough of these op amps to justify not just a specific production run but also recreating the obsolete machines involved from a decade earlier!

Technology moves on and everything is interrelated to everything else. You usually cannot get whatever you want if all the supporting factors are not available.

This is where politicians, who are always laymen, make so many mistakes in their decisions in imposing artificial conditions in the marketplace, like subsidizing alternate power technologies thinking this will bootstrap these technologies to cheaper and more effective levels. They have no firm grasp on how such technical things get created. To them its all the same - miracles that are delivered simply by throwing money at them.

They should all be FORCED to watch those great Burke documentaries!

[dre]

This is where politicians, who are always laymen, make so many mistakes in their decisions in imposing artificial conditions in the marketplace, like subsidizing alternate power technologies thinking this will bootstrap these technologies to cheaper and more effective levels. They have no firm grasp on how such technical things get created. To them its all the same - miracles that are delivered simply by throwing money at them.

like subsidizing alternate power technologies thinking this will bootstrap these technologies to cheaper and more effective levels

Thats exactly what HAS happened. The cost per installed watt for this technologies has plummeted with capital investment, and efficiency had greatly increased as well. The cost per installed watt of solar PV has come down from over $23 to less than $3. The cost of generating electricty with wind turbines has come down from over 15 cents per kwh, to less than 6. And most of this spending isnt on government research its things like tax rebates and research grants to private business, increasing the scale of production, and improving manufacturing processes.

But I wasnt just talking about these technologies. I was talking about the energy sector in general. The fact we built a glut of plants in the 60's and 70's most of which are in need of repairs and we are way behind on that work, and behind on building new conventional plants as well as developing new technologies.

You usually cannot get whatever you want if all the supporting factors are not available.

Again nobody is suggesting anything to the contrary.

Edited May 30, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

The cost per installed watt for this technologies has plummeted with capital investment, and efficiency had greatly increased as well.

What about the cost of all the hydro wires to get it to market? What about the cost of the dialing down other sources of power to deal with unpredictable surges. This where the real costs are with renewables. Reducing the cost per watt is nice but is not going to make renewables viable. Edited May 30, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

I find it ironic that GW alarmists keep calling for the 'moonshot' program to kick start alternative energy since the moon program was ultimately canned as an expensive waste of time.

Youre the only one blabbing on about any moonshot Timmay.

[dre]

What about the cost of all the hydro wires to get it to market? What about the cost of the dialing down other sources of power to deal with unpredictable surges. This where the real costs are with renewables. Reducing the cost per watt is nice but is not going to solve the problem.

No but reducing the cost per watt can help drive solutions to those problems and it already is. Especially since the cost of conventional sources is increasing at the same time.

[TimG]

No but reducing the cost per watt can help drive solutions to those problems and it already is. Especially since the cost of conventional sources is increasing at the same time.

The problem is you always need a conventional source running at less than optimal efficiency to backup an unpredictable renewable. So if the cost of conventional sources is rising then so is the cost of deploying new renewables. That is why renewables will never be viable on a large scale until we find viable storage technologies. Storage technology is the missing prerequisite. Edited May 30, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

The problem is you always need a conventional source running at less than optimal efficiency to backup an unpredictable renewable. So if the cost conventional sources is rising then so is the cost of deploying new renewables. That is why renewables will never be viable until we find viable storage technologies. Storage technology is the missing prerequisite.

Well we already have lots of storage capacity in the form of hyrdo electric reservoirs etc. But I think eventually a lot of the storage will be distributed at the point of consumption. For example a few million electric cars plugged into the grid provides quite a bit of storage.

In anycase thats why we are seeing investment and research into various different storage technologies. The fact that the cost of renewables is coming down and conventional sources are going up creates a market incentive to develope storage, and the technology is progressing fairly quickly.

[dre]

The problem is you always need a conventional source running at less than optimal efficiency to backup an unpredictable renewable. So if the cost conventional sources is rising then so is the cost of deploying new renewables. That is why renewables will never be viable until we find viable storage technologies. Storage technology is the missing prerequisite.

Well we already have lots of storage capacity in the form of hyrdo electric reservoirs etc. But I think eventually a lot of the storage will be distributed at the point of consumption. For example a few million electric cars plugged into the grid provides quite a bit of storage.

In anycase thats why we are seeing investment and research into various different storage technologies. The fact that the cost of renewables is coming down and conventional sources are going up creates a market incentive to develope storage, and the technology is progressing fairly quickly.

[TimG]

Well we already have lots of storage capacity in the form of hyrdo electric reservoirs etc.

To use these you now have the cost of additional power lines and transmission losses. Hydro backup is only economically viable in a few locations.

But I think eventually a lot of the storage will be distributed at the point of consumption. For example a few million electric cars plugged into the grid provides quite a bit of storage.

We don't have those cars and we are long way from that.

The fact that the cost of renewables is coming down and conventional sources are going up creates a market incentive to develope storage, and the technology is progressing fairly quickly.

Nothing really viable is on the horizon. A few expensive prototypes.

[dre]

We don't have those cars and we are long way from that.

Nothing really viable is on the horizon. A few expensive prototypes.

Yup, gonna take some time for sure. Thats why im not a person that claims this is going to get done today. I threw 50-100 years out there. It took a century and massive capital investment to facilitate the fossil fuel age, and moving into the next energy age isnt going to be any easier.

[waldo]

I could care less about your sensitivities... your personal disinformation campaign will be responded to. I note you haven't bothered to take up the 'provide substantiation' challenge, hey? Like I said, your (and Simple's) talk is cheap... very cheap!

Disinformation? When all this AGW bullshit ponzi scheme comes crashing down, and it will, soon ... you and the scientists who have been duped will feel like the real idiots.

how's that been working out for ya, hey? How does it feel being on the fringe... of the fringe? You sir, are the epitome of the "Concern Troll". Yours is a constant, most selective, self-serving natter about toxic pollution, while you so conveniently ignore deny the affects of anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuel burning. As I've repeatedly schooled you, your preferred "toxic pollution related" science/scientists are entrenched in (much of) the same physical science foundation as climate science - you simply haven't a clue or inkling to realize it... to accept it. Like I said, your talk is cheap... very cheap!