Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Will there be a greentech boom?

Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

21 Jul 2009, 9:55 am

I think i remember that farmer vs railroad bit...vaguely =.= .



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

21 Jul 2009, 1:27 pm

Izaak wrote:
And what about the "externalities" of wind energy?


Every decision involves trade-offs; every technology has impacts. The externalities of wind energy seem to me to be much smaller and more palatable than those from burning coal to make electricity.



knowledgeiskey
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 96

22 Jul 2009, 8:37 pm

Sand wrote:
It has always been a wise policy for government to provide financial aid to promising emergent technologies, especially under critical situations. The railroad industry, atomic energy, communications, abstract studies in medicine and physics, etc. have all repaid many times over the government investment in their early developments. The world is rapidly heading to a huge major environmental crisis over human involvement with energy production and the consequences of ignoring the results of major changes in the atmosphere and temperature of the planet are horrific. We are on the brink of worldwide disasters and to do nothing is immense stupidity.


You're right.

The government has already funded some clean energy start ups.



Izaak
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 981
Location: Perth, Western Australia

23 Jul 2009, 6:07 am

Sand wrote:
Izaak wrote:
I disagree Sand.

Railroad industry did better without government intervetion. As I imagine atomic and communications would have also. Communications DEFINITELY would have done better without government interference.

As for physics... there are lots of examples of private research firms making huge advances in knowledge in order to make money. (inventors such as Edison or Franklin spring easiest to mind.) As for human driven dramatic climate catastrophe... that's still up for debate.


If you look up your history of US railroads they were given huge swathes of land to accompany their tracks and when they did acquire power over delivery harvests they screwed the farmers royally until government regulation stepped in to permit farms to become economically viable. Atomic energy would not exist without the Tennessee Valley electrical system to provise power and without the Manhattan Project. Basic research in transistors and theoretical physics to underlie technical communication development was all government supported. If you think dramatic climate change is theoretical and unsupportable you qualify for the booby hatch.


well, for starters only SOME railways were given "huge swathes of land." Others purchased all theirs. And typically the ones that were "given" the land were the ones with the shady business practices. And the fact that the government always interferes to some degree is a given. Historically it has been that the industries that recieve the least amount of government help and can still survive are the ones that are better off.

Secondly I didn't mention SPECIFIC types of energy production. Just that it would be better off without government interference. Just look what happened in California before the Governator got elected. That was basically government screwing around with the price capping of retial energy so that the wholesalers would jack up their prices (during peak load times) but the retailers could not because the government wouldn't let them.

And just a general broad stroke of "basic research in transistors and theoretical physics" was supported by the government is abit rich. of course it was. The government has so many fingers in so many pies that it is almost impossible to do anything without someone claiming that it was "supported by the government" for the puposes of some political one upsmanship. There are plenty of private (well, were) that conduct gains in research. Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments, Harvaard, CalTech, University of Melbourne, Cambridge, or any other number of institutions...


And last... climate change is irrefutable. Climate has been changing on Earth as long as there HAS been a climate. What IS up for debate is the impact humans have on it. If you want to cite destruction of rainforests or extinct species go for it. But anthropomorphic climate change IS STILL UNPROVEN.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jul 2009, 6:15 am

Izaak wrote:
Sand wrote:
Izaak wrote:
I disagree Sand.

Railroad industry did better without government intervetion. As I imagine atomic and communications would have also. Communications DEFINITELY would have done better without government interference.

As for physics... there are lots of examples of private research firms making huge advances in knowledge in order to make money. (inventors such as Edison or Franklin spring easiest to mind.) As for human driven dramatic climate catastrophe... that's still up for debate.


If you look up your history of US railroads they were given huge swathes of land to accompany their tracks and when they did acquire power over delivery harvests they screwed the farmers royally until government regulation stepped in to permit farms to become economically viable. Atomic energy would not exist without the Tennessee Valley electrical system to provise power and without the Manhattan Project. Basic research in transistors and theoretical physics to underlie technical communication development was all government supported. If you think dramatic climate change is theoretical and unsupportable you qualify for the booby hatch.


well, for starters only SOME railways were given "huge swathes of land." Others purchased all theirs. And typically the ones that were "given" the land were the ones with the shady business practices. And the fact that the government always interferes to some degree is a given. Historically it has been that the industries that recieve the least amount of government help and can still survive are the ones that are better off.

Secondly I didn't mention SPECIFIC types of energy production. Just that it would be better off without government interference. Just look what happened in California before the Governator got elected. That was basically government screwing around with the price capping of retial energy so that the wholesalers would jack up their prices (during peak load times) but the retailers could not because the government wouldn't let them.

And just a general broad stroke of "basic research in transistors and theoretical physics" was supported by the government is abit rich. of course it was. The government has so many fingers in so many pies that it is almost impossible to do anything without someone claiming that it was "supported by the government" for the puposes of some political one upsmanship. There are plenty of private (well, were) that conduct gains in research. Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments, Harvaard, CalTech, University of Melbourne, Cambridge, or any other number of institutions...


And last... climate change is irrefutable. Climate has been changing on Earth as long as there HAS been a climate. What IS up for debate is the impact humans have on it. If you want to cite destruction of rainforests or extinct species go for it. But anthropomorphic climate change IS STILL UNPROVEN.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... mpact.html



Izaak
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 981
Location: Perth, Western Australia

23 Jul 2009, 7:21 am

hmmm, a published study from a government organisation that has already declared that Anthropomorphic Climate Change has occurred... WOW.

And further who's main point of existence is to send men into space (as well as sattellites and other things.)

Nice pick of research there Sand.



Izaak
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 981
Location: Perth, Western Australia

23 Jul 2009, 7:24 am

Anyhow... this isn't a discussion thread about the existence (or non-existance) of anthropomorphic climate change. It's about wether or not a Greentech boom will take place. My case is (even if there IS devestatic climate change) is that there CAN NOT BE ONE because the technology LESSENS the efficient delivery of electricity on a scale required by industry. Therefore if anything, the replacing of existing forms of energy with green ones will lead more than likely to further recessions and depressions.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jul 2009, 8:55 am

Izaak wrote:
Anyhow... this isn't a discussion thread about the existence (or non-existance) of anthropomorphic climate change. It's about wether or not a Greentech boom will take place. My case is (even if there IS devestatic climate change) is that there CAN NOT BE ONE because the technology LESSENS the efficient delivery of electricity on a scale required by industry. Therefore if anything, the replacing of existing forms of energy with green ones will lead more than likely to further recessions and depressions.


Boy! Are you in for one hell of a surprise if you live long enough!