I don't see how blanket research grants "pick" winners and losers.
If you qualify for the grant, you qualify for the grant.
The market picks the winners and losers.
Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation
Hmmm. That's funny. I did a search in this thread for "grant" and all I found was you using it, Professor Lambeau. I believe WC stated "subsidies"
What was that? Cognitive bias? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.
He pulls like that all the time.
solar power and wind power is the way to go unless they want to build hydro power dams on rivers, i think thats enough of energy to power the world....
u can have like panels on ur roof eating the sun during the day while windmills the size of a regular fan on ur roof running on wind to power energy during the day and night....excess storage of energy can be sold back to the grid
Tbh I don't think grants and subsidies are the same. Yes, he's right in saying what he said about grants but he's the one that brought up grants.
Back to studying cognitive bias.
You may want to take a break and study subsidies. A grant is a form of one.
Hopefully, we're not talking about Stephen Moore's law. If so, Solar Power is going nowhere fast.
??
and that matters because...?
Are you trying the Chewbacca defense here or what?
I'm sure Dr Lambeau will break it down for us. Maybe they're not talking about the same thing?
Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the way WC uses the word in question and how he won't admit that obvious subsidy are just that before jumping into the debate on his side.
Did your search for grants turn up any of that? No?
Damn.
Grants for research by private start-ups and direct subsidies both take the form of direct cash transfers.Tbh I don't think grants and subsidies are the same. Yes, he's right in saying what he said about grants but he's the one that brought up grants.
Back to studying cognitive bias.
The fact that WC's ill-formed contention that "politicians pick winners and losers" when the government decides to support things is a rather weak one, and easily refuted.
If someone brings up an idea, you are essentially saying it is invalid to try and bring up something that idea fails to account for.
"No fair, you brought up something new to shoot down the idea I support".
GMAFB.
VLE and WC both know they are on the same side. Whether or not VLE's rather clumsy attempt to support WC makes sense is irrelevant.
What's funny is that I am a hoity-toity "know it all", and I would think VLE would say that WC is not, probably not having seen many AGW threads... heh.
This is laughable. Yes, grants are similar, but a different beast. In most cases, I want them done away with too.
RG..
You are pathetic at times. Too often, you change the goalpost to suit your needs, and assume it changes the game. It just makes you look dumb.
WC has been brainwashed. No purpose in arguing with him. He can't change his position until the republican party tells him to. That's what happens when you become politically brainwashed and you're no longer capable of drawing conclusions for yourself. He just has to spew the conservative elitist talking points. It's all he can do now.
Yes, I spar around with him every once and a while, but it's only for my amusement.
How have I "changed the goalpost" here? Be specific.
The simple fact I have been focusing on the likes of subsidies and tax credits. Grants are different in that each one awarded has a review process, or at least is suppose to. They are specified amounts and specified criteria must also be met. I'm OK with some grants, but very few of them as well. I don't see a need for them in the energy industry, except for the small inventor with a big, valid idea, to be able to compete with the big guys. Subsidies to move commercial aspects for political reasons. no.
Universities often get government and private grants.
So it isn't about changing the standard of acceptable evidence to support an assertion, and more about a semantic argument about the definition of "subsidy".How have I "changed the goalpost" here? Be specific.
This is a rather important distinction, as "moving the goalposts" involves intellectual dishonesty, and simply disagreeing about the definition of a word does not inherently do so.
Please explain how encouraging the development of cheaper energy is a purely "political" motive.
Energy Density is Key
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/0...ensity-is-key/
When it comes to power, density is the key. Energy density. The reason that solar power, wind power, and ethanol are so expensive is that they are derived from very diffuse energy sources. It takes a lot of energy collectors such as solar cells, wind turbines, or corn stalks covering many square miles of land to produce the same amount of power that traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants can on just a few acres.
Each of these alternative energy sources is based on mature technology. Agriculture and fermentation have their roots in prehistory, windmills date back at least to 65 B.C., the photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839. Yet nowhere in the world are these technologies serving as primary energy sources without significant government subsidies. While incremental improvements can be expected, what is needed for them to become viable is an order of magnitude increase in productivity. As old and as well-researched as the technologies are, such improvements are possible but unlikely. As significant future energy sources these technologies are dead ends, which is why the government, and not the private sector, is funding them.
Industry is more than willing to risk research dollars on technologies that show real promise, but it is not willing to flush shareholder money down a rat hole. Politicians, however, operate from different incentives. When a crisis, real or imagined, makes headlines, they want voters to see them doing “something” about it, and they must move quickly because election cycles and cons uent attention spans are short. Funding long-term research in promising technologies is not sufficient to meet politicians’ needs. Solar panels, wind turbines, and ethanol refineries are all current technology, and can be erected quickly with fanfare and photo-ops. By the time these alternative power sources prove to be financial and, possibly, environmental busts, the politicians will have been reelected and voters’ attention will have shifted to the next crisis.
Another benefit of subsidizing “shovel ready” solutions is that existing technologies have existing supporters who can provide campaign funds. Such supporters, however, cons ute a well-financed “status quo” that will make government funding, once started, difficult to end. For example, even though corn-based ethanol has driven up food and fuel prices, increased auto emissions, raised atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (by causing additional acreage to be tilled), and possibly resulted in net energy losses, the government is still subsidizing the industry and still requiring that the fuel be added to gasoline.
Wind energy, for its part, has been “just a few years away” from being economically compe ive with conventional power for at least the last 25 years, and this will not change any time soon. The Energy Information Agency predicts that in 2016 wind power will still be 49% to 77% more expensive than electricity from either coal or natural gas. Furthermore, because wind turbines work only when the wind blows, wind farms cannot replace conventional plants. Backup power from conventional sources, usually gas turbines, must be ready to come on line the moment the wind fails. Despite these fundamental problems, subsidies continue to flow thanks to an entrenched lobby.
By contrast, consider the significant oil industry investments in researching biofuels made from algae. Unlike ethanol, biofuels are chemically similar to fuel made from petroleum and, like petroleum-based fuels, have a significantly higher energy content than does ethanol. Biofuels can also be handled by current fuel distribution systems and can be burned in today’s vehicles.
Algae can be grown in brackish water on desert land and, with today’s technology, can produce over 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre each year. This compares favorably with the approximately 250 gallons of ethanol that can be produced from an acre of corn – a ratio of 8 to 1. Accounting for the differences in BTU content, the ratio jumps to over 12 to 1. It may even be possible to boost productivity to 100,000 gallons per acre per year, raising algae’s potential to over 600 times that of corn-based ethanol!
Biofuels are carbon neutral because the carbon dioxide released when they are burned is first extracted from the atmosphere by the algae. Unlike burning petroleum-based fuels, then, burning biofuels will not result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
With algae’s vast potential, it is easy to understand why private industry is interested, and why no government subsidies are needed to encourage investment. Moreover, if algae-based fuels do not prove viable, the companies now researching them will have no “status quo” problems with ending their investments and shifting scarce resources to more promising technologies – where “promise” is measured in density.
Its ok Darrin. Reading is hard.
What do these trends mean for the future? If the 7 percent decline in costs continues (and 2010 and 2011 both look likely to beat that number), then in 20 years the cost per watt of PV cells will be just over 50 cents.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo..._Kilowatt-HourIndications are that the projections above are actually too conservative. First Solar corporation has announced internal production costs (though not consumer prices) of 75 cents per watt, and expects to hit 50 cents per watt in production cost in 2016. If they hit their estimates, they’ll be beating the trend above by a considerable margin.
Solar PV 15-30 cents per KwH
Gas/Coal 3-5 cents
An order of magnitude would make solar at 1.5-3.0 cents per KwH.
Based on past rates of efficiency increase in solar, this will be acheived in approximately 20 years, quite possibly sooner.
Wind, it should be noted, is at about 4-6 cents now.
By your own source's admission that would make investing in the technology now make a lot of sense.
Thank you.
p.s. "old and well-researched"
Yeah, Darrin continually posted the OP directly tackled. But like I said, reading is hard.
The OP only addressed cost and efficiency. Still doesn't address the fact that solar energy is not and never will be a dense source of energy -- just like rain is not a dense source of drinking water, no matter how you much you improve the collection and transmittion process.
Germany uses the most PV in the world.
Power generation from PV in Germany is less than 1%.
Really?
And yet, we use reservoirs all over the world in order to catch rain water in order to have water. Where do you think ground water comes from, Darrin?
Rain is the ultimate source of drinking water and there are so many places that rely on it directly and you use THAT as your example?
You can't make this up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
