Solar Cells versus Plant Cells

[Wild Cobra]

Saw an interesting story. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but I see it at a minimum, food for thought:

Solar Cells versus Plant Cells: In Defense of Chlorophyll (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15708)

[boutons_deux]

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Deadly_panels.pdf

"Green Nazis"??

VRWC paid this asshole to scare-monger, and of course he offers no alternatives or solutions.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Deadly_panels.pdf

"Green Nazis"??

VRWC paid this asshole to scare-monger, and of course he offers no alternatives or solutions.
There you go again, always jumping to conclusions.

Are you saying there is no merit to the points made in the article?

[boutons_deux]

I'd prefer to hear direct from the fire authorities that they can or can't fight fires in buildings with roof solar panels, and that there is no solution to that problem if it is a problem.

All cities have fire codes, the famous NYFD being one.

If the fire and building codes have to be adjusted, if the mounting methods have to be adjusted, let's see it, not this scare-mongering asshole.

[Drachen]

At first blush this was what I was going to write

This looks interesting and I will have to go back and read the whole thing, but I only skimmed the last 3 or so paragraphs (after actually reading the rest), was there a way to capture the electrical current in photosynthesis. I like the idea of terraforming the desert, but that still wouldn't solve the problem of energy generation.

B_D: you read THAT article and comment on the last paragraph which (admittedly should not have been in there) had nothing to do at all with the article? I absolutely agree with your statement, but its completely beside the point of the article.

--- But now that I think about it, I am not completely sure what the point of this article is. Should we abandon energy production and terraform the deserts? Is it JUST about discrediting solar panels as a means of production? I am not sure. It is still interesting, but seems like more of an intellectual circle-jerk than anything. I could, however, be wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

At first blush this was what I was going to write


--- But now that I think about it, I am not completely sure what the point of this article is. Should we abandon energy production and terraform the deserts? Is it JUST about discrediting solar panels as a means of production? I am not sure. It is still interesting, but seems like more of an intellectual circle-jerk than anything. I could, however, be wrong.
I didn't try to read too much into the intent of the article, rather acknowledge the things of merit it says for consideration. I disagree with diverting water in the manner which they say. I have always thought the idea of making canals and tunnels to bring sea water to Death Valley would serve us well. The extra moisture content could more naturally bring life back to the desert, and without it intense upward IR, allow rain to more naturally reclaim the land, and be another large body of water to produce rain.

They have some interesting points about solar cells and insects. I wonder to what validity we should give them.

I am not a big fan of solar or wind. I think we have plenty of time to wait for better alternatives than today's technology.

[Drachen]

I am not a big fan of solar or wind. I think we have plenty of time to wait for better alternatives than today's technology.

I couldn't disagree more, but being a realist and understanding the powers that be, I believe the solution that goes into effect will be something in the area right in between our two opinions (probably leaning more towards yours because once again I understand the powers that be).

If you want to get into a conversation about why I hold the opinion that I do, I am sorry but I don't. Those conversations have gone on ad nauseum on this website from every possible angle with facts and statistics produced by both sides to refute the arguments, counter-arguments, and counter counter-arguments of each side. I don't really see a point, you know my reasons, I know your reasons we don't agree. We can both see where this is going and will advocate the best we know how for our opinions, but I think that we can both see that on this subject we aren't going to change anyone's mind who has the opinions that we have.

[Wild Cobra]

I couldn't disagree more, but being a realist and understanding the powers that be, I believe the solution that goes into effect will be something in the area right in between our two opinions (probably leaning more towards yours because once again I understand the powers that be).

Would you agree that a decade can make a great deal of technological difference? I prefer to wait. At least until we have more affordable alternatives, or until we must build alternatives.

Is a decade too long for you?

[Drachen]

Would you agree that a decade can make a great deal of technological difference? I prefer to wait. At least until we have more affordable alternatives, or until we must build alternatives.

Is a decade too long for you?

Yes.

Additionally, all of the money that is invested today will have an exponential effect on the technology available 10 years from now

[Wild Cobra]

Yes.

Additionally, all of the money that is invested today will have an exponential effect on the technology available 10 years from now
I disagree. There is a difference between experimental small scale projects, than the really huge expensive ones. You don't need to build so large to improve understanding and technology.

I'm not against the development at all. Just the premature execution of it in mass.

[Drachen]

Demand begets innovation.

[Wild Cobra]

Demand begets innovation.

Agreed.

Can we do it without the subsidies?

[Drachen]

Agreed.

Can we do it without the subsidies?

If we are going to be fair about it, then I believe that not only do we have to stop the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, but we have to kick some to the "green" energy industry to allow them the same advantages that oil, et. al. have enjoyed for years.

[Wild Cobra]

If we are going to be fair about it, then I believe that not only do we have to stop the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, but we have to kick some to the "green" energy industry to allow them the same advantages that oil, et. al. have enjoyed for years.
Are you talking subsidies, or tax break? I am referring to the true meaning of subsidies. Not how people try to change the term in today's usage.

I am against all subsidies. Period.

[Drachen]

Are you talking subsidies, or tax break? I am referring to the true meaning of subsidies. Not how people try to change the term in today's usage.

I am against all subsidies. Period.

OK, stop all subsidies and give the "green" energy sector a refundable tax break. This works too.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, stop all subsidies and give the "green" energy sector a refundable tax break. This works too.
I'm OK with tax breaks to allow for development. Not giving away other people's money though. I still think that Corporate America will invest when they see a viable return, without incentive. I really dislike the politicians picking winners and losers.

[Drachen]

I'm OK with tax breaks to allow for development. Not giving away other people's money though. I still think that Corporate America will invest when they see a viable return, without incentive. I really dislike the politicians picking winners and losers.

I would rather create a temporary artificial viable return in the interests of public health, national security, and the possibility of the greenhouse effect/global warming/climate change etc being real. If you are going to continue this conversation focusing on the third item in that list, don't. I already used the word "possibility" in order to move to the middle ground there. The other two on the other hand are very real. I believe we have already discussed at least one of those topics to a stalemate anyway.

[boutons_deux]

Saw an interesting story. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but I see it at a minimum, food for thought:

Solar Cells versus Plant Cells: In Defense of Chlorophyll (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15708)

Sure, whatever works to convert solar to electrical energy.

But this dreamer has no practical, workable suggestions about how to produce fresh water to irrigate deserts (terrestial plants can't survive on salt water, the invasive salt cedar being one exception).

There's already insufficient snowmelt from the Rockies to irrigate CA and for the cities, while the CA aquifer and the Ogallala aquifers, 10s of 1000s of years old, are being sucked dry. Libya is sucking dry an ancient aquifer discovered a few years ago under the Sahara.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The fact that partchanger is looking to a PAC for science is pretty telling. the fact that he is looking to a PAC for anyhitng is pretty telling of his capacity for independent thought.

[MannyIsGod]

Subsidies and Tax Breaks amount to the same damn thing in the end. That WC opposes one and not the other is and always will be foolish as hell.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Subsidies and Tax Breaks amount to the same damn thing in the end. That WC opposes one and not the other is and always will be foolish as hell.

Yeah economically they are the exact same thing.

[Wild Cobra]

Subsidies and Tax Breaks amount to the same damn thing in the end. That WC opposes one and not the other is and always will be foolish as hell.
No, they just have you fooled into thinking it's the same things. With a subsidy, you can get back money you never earned. With a tax break, you cannot have your taxes reduced lower than zero.

[ElNono]

No, they just have you fooled into thinking it's the same things. With a subsidy, you can get back money you never earned. With a tax break, you cannot have your taxes reduced lower than zero.

Who are they?

And for your special case to apply you would need to earn less than the subsidy.

That your ideological compass is based on a fringe case is not that all surprising though.

[Drachen]

Subsidies and Tax Breaks amount to the same damn thing in the end. That WC opposes one and not the other is and always will be foolish as hell.

Which is kinda why I don't really care to argue the semantic point of view. I'll just play the game "sure stop all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and give refundable tax breaks to the green energy producers." I don't care what you call it, as long as the exact same ends are met.