Obama Administration Tests the Waters With Ocean Power Startups

Coastal power by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 10:23 · Score: 0

But still, most people live near the coasts, so it's not that big a deal. Just hope these are durable enough to survive hurricanes, and not too disruptive to the marine environment.

Foolish mortals! by cvtan · 2011-07-22 10:27 · Score: 2

My cyber-warfare-enabled endangered snails will bring this project to its knees! or something about not doing it on porpoise just for the halibut. Never mind.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.

at least post a picture by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 10:28 · Score: 0

when writing a shitty PR story the least they can do is post a picture.
http://www.ongo.com/v/1403506/-1/A80D0E2207C14C98/quest-for-renewable-power-turns-back-to-water
and no they dont all look like that :
http://www.nps.gov/miss/parkmgmt/hydro.htm
http://www.oceanpowermagazine.net/2010/12/01/w2-energy-inc-acquires-hydrokinetic-laboratories-llc/
http://luken1.wikispaces.com/

It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 10:28 · Score: 0

As the Federal Govt. they should be working on a final solution to the energy demands of the nation not pissing away these paltry sums on questionable methods of energy production. There are two possibilities for long term energy independence. 1. Fission... 2. Fusion... The administration should get out of the way and let the free market develop Fission and the govt should be developing Fusion (High risk, High payoff).

Whoever Obama is listening to on his energy policy clearly needs to have plexiglass installed in his abdomen so he can see where he is going.

Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 10:33 · Score: 0

1. Fusion
It is what we need to focus on. Have 6 shifts of scientists working around the clock. Throw lots of construction money at it.
They have the ITER and DEMO concept plants. Let's improve on that and get it done. It might be complicated, but it is possible.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by h4rr4r · 2011-07-22 10:36 · Score: 4, Informative

Fission is not something the free market will invest in. They never have. So far it has taken government backed loans and government provided insurance just to get the plants we have. I think it is a great source of power, but he free market seem to disagree.
They only carry $375 Million in insurance on the plants and the Price-Anderson act covers over that. This act is so anti-free market that it moves civil suits to federal jurisdiction and no claimant can get punitive damages.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by Osgeld · 2011-07-22 11:55 · Score: 1

there is only one way to answer a question no one has asked... but this one has been asked and has been successful in most cases. The easy way is a large float connected to a crank-arm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by riverat1 · 2011-07-22 12:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Re: $375 Million and the Price-Anderson act. So far the Fukushima disaster has cost the Japanese over $240 Billion. If something even close were to happen to a US reactor we the people are on the hook for any costs over $375 Million. No nuclear power plants will be built if it's left only to the free market.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by wierd_w · 2011-07-22 12:17 · Score: 2

Fusion?
I had a random idea several months ago that I think might work but would be impractical in the "We need metric shit-tons of energy *NAOW!*" climate we live in.
Basically, the main problems with current fusion systems are the following:
Concentrating the plasma tight enough to release over unity energy directly often causes pinching of the magnetic confinement feild, cutting off plasma flow, and killing the fusion reaction. (A little like turning the gas up too high on a cutting torch blows the flame out, only in this case the confinement snaps the plasma stream, making it stop conducting electricity, causing the plasma to disperse violently, such as in Z-Pinch type devices.)
Instances where the magnetic confinement field does not pinch off the plasma flow often are extremely expensive to operate under, requiring lots of power to contain/maintain the fusion. (Currently more than is usefully generated by the reaction-- Such as in Tokamak style fusors.)
Low energy confinement fusion favors production of neutrons which are useless for power generation, and difficult to shield. (Such as found in Farnsworth type fusors.)
It was the last one that gave me the idea:
Carbon 14 is a neutron bombardment synthesized isotope of carbon, created from nitrogen atoms. It is also beta-voltaic. It decays back into nitrogen after emitting a high energy electron, and a (Tau?) neutrino. When assembled into nanostructures, it is also highly conductive in and of itself, just like carbon 12.
Because of these properties of carbon 14, I had the strange idea that if you surrounded a farnsworth type fusor (The easiest to construct of the 3 types above.) with a large metal spherical capsule, filled with carbon aerogel and liquid nitrogen (which does not need to be refrigerated or circulated once installed. The vessel is meant to be pressurized to maintain fluidity of the contents.) you could effectively use this shell as a neutron conversion catalyst to convert neutron emissions into high energy electron emissions, gather them up, and channel them for power generation.
The carbon aeogel inside the vessel does not need to be C14. It can be ordinary C12 and work just fine. It functions as the cathode matrix for the beta-voltaic emissions of the C14 that gets developed inside the converter. Since it is ALREADY a highly porous nanostructural carbon material, it conducts electricity fairly well, and can be totally immersed in the liquid nitrogen reactant.
As the neutrons from the farnsworth fusor pass through the catalyst, they get absorbed by the nitrogen atoms, turning them into C14 atoms. These atoms would be energetic, and would tend to "cling" to the existing carbon nano-structures of the aerogel. As they decay, the turn back into nitrogen, and detach.
After a sufficient incubation period, the device should be capable of turning an otherwise "Hobby novelty only" farnsworth into a useful power generating device.
Problems:
Size. The catalyst chamber would need to be very large to have reasonably good statistical rate of neutron capture, even with highly pressurized nitrogen inside.
Cost. Carbon aerogel is expensive... (Liquid nitrogen is fairly cheap. Cheaper than beer.)
Time. It would take a considerable charging period before useful power output would be detected from the catalyst system.
Pros:
C14 has an obscenely long half-life. The catalyst layer would continue to produce electrical energy for extended periods of time, even with the fusion reaction totally shut off. (Arguably thousands of years.....)
Production of carbon isotopes intrinsically within the catalyst layer would actively regenerate damage to the nanostructures of the cathode, which normally plagues betavoltaic devices.
The high energy nature would help to ensure tight ring structures like fullerene cages and the like.
Unknowns:
Ideal hardness and energy level of harvested neutronic emissions for ideal C14 creation in the cataylst. Reason: Fucking paywalls.
Ideal thickness of catalyst layer for optimal absorbtion. Reason: Fucking paywalls.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by wagnerrp · 2011-07-22 13:00 · Score: 2

Fission is not something the free market will invest in because the fact that were still running 40yr old reactor designs, restricted from fuel reprocessing, and stuck using expensive and rare U235, in addition to all the bureaucracy needed to install a new plant, means that by the time you get the thing built, it will be several decades before you recoup its cost, at which time it's nearing its end of life and will need to be replaced.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by lefteyecc · 2011-07-22 16:09 · Score: 1

I am not a scientist but why do you not have any replies? Seems like people on this site would rather spout political retardation than argue or dicuss anything positive and related to the topic. Does anyone smart have any replies to this?...this is very interesting...
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by bertok · 2011-07-22 17:33 · Score: 1

has cost the Japanese over $240 Billion
No. Just... no.
That's an estimate by some 'think tank' of the 'possible' total costs for the next decade. So even if it were true, it's just $25B/yr, or about 1/4 the annual cost of the war in Iraq.
It can't possibly be the total cost so far -- there's literally no way to buy stuff that is that expensive and make use of it in a constructive way in such a short period of time.
To put it another way, all money spent eventually becomes labor. Raw materials are priced essentially by the labor required to obtain them, as is energy. Even if the money was spent on quite expensive people, such as nuclear technicians, at an annual salary of say $300K, your quote of $240B spent would be the equivalent of 2.27 million such professional people working full time over the 134 days since the accident.
What could 2.27 million people possibly be doing? It would be impossible to fit even 1% of them onto the area of the plant! The materials and technologies used for the cleanup are quite ordinary and cheap, and can be applied using simple techniques. Think soap and water!
More realistic estimates from reputable sources are around $10B over a decade. That sounds about right for a large and complex engineering project like a nuclear cleanup involving hundreds of specialist technicians.
To put it another way, there are 442 nuclear reactors around the world used to generate power, and 2 have had a major disasters costing about a billion dollars per year. That works out to something like $2B/yr / 442 reactors = $4.5M/yr/reactor. That's a negligible overhead, and easily handled by private insurance.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by riverat1 · 2011-07-22 17:55 · Score: 2

I think you're right, the $240 billion is probably and estimate of the total cost and may be on the high side depending on a lot of factors. But you can't tell me that the total cost of Fukushima is not going to be higher than the $375 million limit of private liability in the Price-Anderson Act and no doubt several multiples of that.
No private insurance company is willing to take on the potential liability of a nuclear plant without government guarantees to back them up.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by dasunt · 2011-07-22 18:13 · Score: 1

$375 Million and the Price-Anderson act. So far the Fukushima disaster has cost the Japanese over $240 Billion.
Actually, estimated at $70 billion to $240 billion for the next 10 years.
Hmmm, so $7 to $24 billion a year.
Lets see. Fossil fuels fine particle pollution kills over 13,000 people a year in the US, mostly from coal. So if a human life is worth $540,000 to $1,850,000, we've matched that in the human cost alone for power plants operating normally in the US.
But it looks like the value of a human life comes in at $5 million in the US, on the low end. So normally operating non-nuclear plants in the US are costing us $650 billion in the human cost alone for the next 10 years.
For a free market, it seems like no coal power plants would be built. Even considering the difference in how much total power comes from coal vs nuclear, coal seems much, much more expensive.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by bertok · 2011-07-22 18:44 · Score: 1

Maybe, but throwing around numbers that are 25x higher than a realistic estimate and pretending that it is being spent at 30x of the actual rate makes it sound like a nuclear accident would instantly bankrupt even a large insurer, when in reality it would do no such thing.
Many insurance companies could handle $1B/yr, and there's nothing wrong with governments providing extra protection, like they do with banks.
And anyway, who cares how nuclear power is insured? You either pay for it directly through the cost of insurance that's factored into the electricity bill, or indirectly via your taxes. Either way, the cost is roughly the same, and not very large.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by yacwroy · 2011-07-22 20:14 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: IANANS
Is this what you mean?
1: Fusor in centre radiates neutrons.
2: Neutrons convert N14 to C14 in capsule.
3: The concentration of C14 eventually becomes high enough that it's decay releases useful amounts of energy.
4: The C14 decays back into N14, releasing electrons (-) and (wikipedia) electron antineutrinos. The N14 is short 1 electron (initially, on average) and thus acts as a cathode.
5. The released electrons are captured in an anode.
6: The cathode and anode are used to drive a transforming system that then powers the grid.
Questions:
1: Where is the anode (step 5)? Is this perhaps an outer shell?
Initial thoughts.
1: Won't the vast majority of electrons get re-absorbed by the cathode (any emissions not from the outermost part of the gel or not emitted in the right direction), such that the major ultimate power output of the decay process is thermal.
2: Won't the electrons that do get emitted lose their energy (thermal loss) ploughing through the liquid nitrogen?
3: Any electrons that do strike the anode will still have some kinetic energy which will again be converted to thermal.
4: You have to have enough separation, or low enough voltage, to prevent a short back through your liquid nitrogen.
To me it seems this would produce thermal energy many orders of magnitude higher than direct electrical energy.
However, some version of this electron capture idea might be viable in another form (perhaps create heaps of C14 then reprocess it as ultra-thin shaped sheets with magnetic fields to attempt to focus the emissions with little excess kinetic energy).
Once again, IANANS.

--
You agree with me.
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by TheTurtlesMoves · 2011-07-23 00:09 · Score: 1

You have unfortunately totally underestimated the lack of effectiveness of a fusor. Sure you can detect neutrons from them, thats because the type of instruments used count single neutrons. While 14 grams of Nitrogen contains 6x10^23 atoms. The best fusors get about 10^10 neutrons per second (most get much much less), this will take 1.9 million years to produce enough neutrons to transmutate just 14grams of nitrogen. I don't recall the reaction, but I don't thing 14N does transmutate to 14C with the addition of a neutron. The numbers don't add up.

Lets see what it will take to get a strong enough neutron source. Lets say we want that 14g of 13C in 1 week. So we need 992x10^15 neutrons per second. At 2.45MeV (DD neutrons) per neutron that is 389kW of power in the neutrons alone. The total power burn of DD would be about twice that --In other words you need the order of 1MW of fusion power (DT would need less total power, but more would be in the neutrons).

If you want to transmute any significant quantity of something from a neutron source, its also a power source in its own right.

--
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 04:26 · Score: 0

(...) and the govt should be developing Fusion (High risk, High payoff).

Apparently, your USA government didn't feel like it:
from wikipedia on ITER:

ITER began in 1985 as a collaboration between the then Soviet Union, the European Union (through EURATOM), the USA, and Japan. Conceptual and engineering design phases led to an acceptable, detailed design in 2001, underpinned by US$650 million worth of research and development by the "ITER Parties" to establish its practical feasibility. These parties (with the Russian Federation replacing the Soviet Union and with the USA opting out of the project in 1999 and returning in 2003) were joined in negotiations on the future construction, operation and decommissioning of ITER by Canada (who then terminated their participation at the end of 2003), the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea. India officially became part of ITER on 6 December 2005.

emphasis mine.
Maybe they didn't like that "tokamak" was a russian word :-)
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-24 02:24 · Score: 1

No private insurance company is willing to take on the potential liability of a nuclear plant without government guarantees to back them up.
Seems like post Fukushima many governments are willing to take on the potential liability of a nuclear plant either.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-24 02:39 · Score: 1

It's not like we aren't trying to develop new designs, it is just that so far no-one has come up with a workable one that is better than what we have. Despite the basic technology being 40 years old it has the advantage of being well tested and well understood, and therefore safe. Any time you introduce something new you have to prove that it is safe to operate, which for nuclear takes a long time and a lot of money. Even then things go wrong, fly-by-wire systems in passenger aircraft being a good example.
According to Wikipedia there is research going on into Thorium and existing CANDU reactors can use it. The bottom line though is that it won't make commercial sense until government funding provides the necessary research to make it cheap. In the mean time the focus is shifting to renewables like solar thermal collectors which are inherently safe and an easy sell to both governments and the public.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by Coren22 · 2011-07-26 04:55 · Score: 1

Your grammar on that sentence was terrible. I believe you are trying to say that not many governments are willing to, but that is not what you said. Yes, some governments who don't have to worry about tsunamis and huge earthquakes got scared and decided to move away from nuclear. At the time it mostly sounded like politicians pandering for votes more than any actual good reason. Many governments have said that they are not stopping using nuclear, and they are right to say it.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:It shoule be $50 Billion on fusion! by Coren22 · 2011-07-26 05:41 · Score: 1

Or perhaps Clinton canceled the funding and Bush Jr. brought it back? But of course, the US government is a megalithic being that always acts on things the same way throughout many presidencies.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by MokuMokuRyoushi · 2011-07-22 10:30 · Score: 1

Probably end up killing marine life and stopping waves from happening

You're right, those things might actually happen!

Currently, the Department of Energy has a mandate to spend $50 million a year on backing such research

Oh, so they're doing research to the tune of 50 mil before they try anything big. Problem solved.

--
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.

Wul, Gosh! by flyneye · 2011-07-22 10:30 · Score: 0

Why not? After all the Obama Administration spent $350,000 per household getting western Kansas internet 4 times faster than mine at tax payer expense.
Why the hell just not put money into any damn thing we can think of instead of furthering feasible things that exist?
God I love a man who can throw that money around like it was his and not mine. The f***head,,,

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:Wul, Gosh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 10:40 · Score: 0

>$350,000 per household
Citation needed or shut the fuck up.
Re:Wul, Gosh! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-22 10:49 · Score: 1

>$350,000 per household
Citation needed or shut the fuck up.
citation

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Wul, Gosh! by flyneye · 2011-07-22 13:11 · Score: 1

Well if you had been on the 13th, coherent enough to read...
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/13/2014244/The-Cost-Of-Broadband-In-Every-Rural-Home

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Biofouling by goodmanj · 2011-07-22 10:35 · Score: 1

One word: biofouling.

Re:Biofouling by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 11:18 · Score: 0

Several more words: maybe the expert engineers who are paid and trained to think of these things already did.
Or maybe you're the only one smart enough to think of it.
Which do you think it is?
Re:Biofouling by DigiShaman · 2011-07-22 11:57 · Score: 1

I'm sure they know this well in advance, but actively choose not to mention it. The idea being that should this investment take off, you can tackle that other problem later. No need to deal with it now.
Ya, it's a short-sided view of it all but nothing unusual in practice with any large and new deployment of technology. Take Nuclear for example. We all know what it can provide and the huge potential for its future. But maintenance cost and safety inspections can get rather expensive.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Biofouling by interkin3tic · 2011-07-22 12:02 · Score: 1

One hypenated word: anti-biofouling.

You may have heard of it, it's the second section on that wiki page you cited. I skimmed it. It does not say "Impossible, abandon all hope."
Re:Biofouling by Isaac-1 · 2011-07-22 12:09 · Score: 1

Not just biofouling, but also corrosion, any metal you place around sea water will corrode, this thing is big, lots of required metal parts, in a highly corrosive environment, your $$$ per watt over the life of the unit would likely be lower with almost any other form of alternative power generation. I am all for tidal power in theory, but this is not it.
Re:Biofouling by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 12:22 · Score: 0

I am all for tidal power in theory, but this is not it.
Unless you're a tidal power engineer, you're not qualified to make that assessment, are you?
Re:Biofouling by goodmanj · 2011-07-22 13:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Original poster here. I'm an oceanographer -- a physicist, not an ocean engineer, but I've talked with enough marine engineers to know about the issues. Designing instruments that operate unattended for long periods of time in the ocean without getting covered with barnacles, slime, worms, algae, and all manner of crap is one of the big unsolved problems in our field. Our best solution to the problem is to minimize the number of moving parts, and to keep most of the equipment well below the photic zone (the sunlit shallows where most of the life hangs out). Neither of these is possible for a hydrokinetic marine turbine.
(Random anecdote: another problem we have is that devices that carry electric current tend to get attacked by sharks, which have delicate electrosensory organs, so cables need special anti-shark armor.)
Another commenter mentioned corrosion: that's fairly easy to deal with using a sacrificial anode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode). But biofouling is a lot harder to deal with. I'm willing to believe that the designers of this system have a solution, but only after they've successfully operated a turbine for several years without problems.
Re:Biofouling by goodmanj · 2011-07-22 13:07 · Score: 1

Corrosion is a solved problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode
Re:Biofouling by Scarletdown · 2011-07-22 13:13 · Score: 1

I am all for tidal power in theory, but this is not it.
Unless you're a tidal power engineer, you're not qualified to make that assessment, are you?
Protip: You don't have to be professionally trained and certified in a field to be able to understand and engage in intelligent discussions about the subject matter, or to be able to have insights that the professionally trained members of the field could have possibly missed.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Biofouling by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:25 · Score: 0

Plastics.
Re:Biofouling by rtb61 · 2011-07-22 15:47 · Score: 2

Once you have suburbia, the better method is distributed power generation via solar panels and vertical wind turbines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine (take up less space, spin slower ie less of bird threat and quieter).
Rather than subsidising, better to buy out patents and offer them patent free (when locally manufactured). Promote development of lower cost production techniques. Most importantly promote open free of patent encumbrances (for local production) to accelerate development.
With suburbia already covering thousands of square kilometres, getting those roofs producing energy makes more sense, especially when consumers themselves would pay all of or a substantial portion of the capital costs, perhaps even very low interest loans to accelerate the uptake.
So solar panel roofs with vertical axis wind turbines distributed along the ridges, makes a lot more sense.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Biofouling by Dachannien · 2011-07-22 16:27 · Score: 1

One word: biofouling.
Somebody call Mike Rowe.
Re:Biofouling by TheRaven64 · 2011-07-22 22:39 · Score: 1

the expert engineers who are paid and trained to think of these things
Sadly, in a lot of industrial projects, the engineers are trained to think of these things and then paid not to think of them...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Biofouling by drinkypoo · 2011-07-23 00:22 · Score: 1

Wind turbines don't make sense in suburbia, because they make noise. Ever been inside an operating windmill? Want to live right under one turning around on its bearings at night when you're trying to sleep, mounted to the stick structure of your house? The whole house will vibrate in any good wind.
Further, most of suburbia was designed by total fucking idiots. Houses don't face the sun! They don't even have passive solar construction, which offers a better return than any active solar technology, because it costs basically nothing if it's done when the house is built. Not only do you need a sun-facing roof, but it must never be occluded. Otherwise you can't break even on solar even where there are incentives, because you need "extra" panels. And you don't put a solar system on a house that's got problems, either... so only maybe 15% of the roofs out there are suitable homes for panels.
I believe in local generation of power but this is something that must be designed into society. You can put wind turbines on malls and such because nobody sleeps there, but not on dwellings.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Biofouling by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 00:36 · Score: 0

Then why not design so that maintenance is easy. Like making sure that the setup is not rigid but can be easily hauled up, cleaned and submerged again.
Like in this example: http://thefirst12.blogspot.com/2009/02/effective-way-to-harvest-power-of-ocean.html
Re:Biofouling by Will.Woodhull · 2011-07-23 02:38 · Score: 1

WRT "hypenated":
Is this a typo or a neologism? This could be the most significant portmanteau word added to English this Summer.
Unfortunately its usage in the original post inappropriately weakens that post's point. "Anti-biofouling" is indeed hyphenated but by no means should it be considered hyperbole.

--
Will
Re:Biofouling by ColdWetDog · 2011-07-23 06:00 · Score: 1

Corrosion is a solved problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode
My boat (with several zinc anodes) would like to have a word with you. Be sure to bring some WD-40.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Biofouling by interkin3tic · 2011-07-23 06:26 · Score: 1

This could be the most significant portmanteau word added to English this Summer.

No, it's the most significant language-nazi trolling I've done this summer.
Re:Biofouling by rtb61 · 2011-07-23 16:09 · Score: 1

I suggest you read up on vertical axis wind turbines, they spin no faster than the wind the operate in hence are a lot quieter and are suitable for the suburban environment as long as the bearings are services. As for building facing, the fantasy of design versus the reality of geography and the extreme cost of attempting to force geography to twist to the fancies of design and how that in turn disrupts services like water, sewer and stormwater. Now add in population densities, access to services, functional design requirements.
All dwellings require roofs, now the government investment is required to make it cost efficient for those roofs to be made of solar panels regardless of orientation, shape, pitch etc. Right now patents are far more of an encumbrance to the development of more cost efficient solar panels than a benefit.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Biofouling by drinkypoo · 2011-07-23 17:11 · Score: 1

I suggest you read up on vertical axis wind turbines, they spin no faster than the wind the operate in hence are a lot quieter and are suitable for the suburban environment as long as the bearings are services
Solar power is one of the most dangerous types of power generation to work in mostly because of all the opportunities to fall off roofs.

As for building facing, the fantasy of design versus the reality of geography and the extreme cost of attempting to force geography to twist to the fancies of design and how that in turn disrupts services like water, sewer and stormwater. Now add in population densities, access to services, functional design requirements.

Now take into account the fact that in general, even when houses could be oriented to the sun for free, they aren't. So maybe it would only be 50%, the fact is that most people orient to the street whether it makes sense or not, which is dumb.

All dwellings require roofs, now the government investment is required to make it cost efficient for those roofs to be made of solar panels regardless of orientation, shape, pitch etc.
I think we should be putting greenhouses on roofs, they are still sensitive to orientation but less so. We can grow food in them hydroponically. Put the artificial solar panels where it makes sense, of course, like in southern states where you don't need greenhouses.

Right now patents are far more of an encumbrance to the development of more cost efficient solar panels than a benefit.
We weren't even talking about that.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Biofouling by Will.Woodhull · 2011-07-24 04:55 · Score: 1

Wow, I just learned something significant.
For all the years that there have been language-nazi trolls on slashdot, I for reasons I cannot explain always assumed that they would not engage in the creation of neologisms or new portmanteau words. I stand corrected.
So even for the language-nazis among us, the English of our forefathers is just not quite good enough for today's communications.

--
Will
Re:Biofouling by Coren22 · 2011-07-26 05:51 · Score: 1

That picture makes me concerned it would last about a week. What happens the first time a fish, or worse, whale or shark gets sucked in...

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by 0123456 · 2011-07-22 10:36 · Score: 2

Over the past 30 years if there is one thing that I've seen dry up is privately funded research. It simply no longer exists..

Uh, what?

I've been working in R&D in most of the companies that I've worked for in the last twenty years. So I'm somewhat surprised to discover that I've just been imagining it.

As for this particular 'research', if the 'researcher' could make a good business case for it working and making financial sense then plenty of people would be eager to throw money at them. When they have to go to the government for taxpayers money that's pretty good evidence that there is no such case that makes any sense.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by h4rr4r · 2011-07-22 10:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

As for this particular 'research', if the 'researcher' could make a good business case for it working and making financial sense then plenty of people would be eager to throw money at them. When they have to go to the government for taxpayers money that's pretty good evidence that there is no such case that makes any sense.

Exactly. Real Research does not come with a guarantee of a payoff. You may have worked in R&D devisions, but they do not do Bell Labs, Xerox PARC levels of research. These days only short term payoff kinds of research are done privately. Thanks for proving the GPs point for him.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by Tengoo · 2011-07-22 10:40 · Score: 0

Obamski? I hadn't heard that one yet.. can someone who speaks Internet Republican kindly explain this to the unenlightened among us?

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by flyneye · 2011-07-22 10:44 · Score: 1, Troll

Hey check our wallet dumbass!
We can play the horses later.
Lets fund all the experimental crap we've been playing with already and pouring my damned money into, it's further ahead and a safer bet(just in case you're too thick to put that together all by yourself).
Obama isn't so left or right as he is an attention whore.( Wants re-elected and it sounds like you're ready to unzip him and say ahhhhh)
You seem to be an "intellectual" maybe you can put two plus two together for the rest of it. Should taste better than your toecheese.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Gravitational issues? by bobstreo · 2011-07-22 10:47 · Score: 1

So if they build a bunch of these will it cause any issues with tides, speed of rotation of the earth or anything?

Re:Gravitational issues? by jfengel · 2011-07-22 10:56 · Score: 1

They'd have to build billions of them to have a noticeable effect. They have to be built fairly close to land; otherwise you can't get the power where you need it. The shorelines are a trivial fraction of the ocean, so even if you covered every shore with them you wouldn't absorb enough tidal energy to affect the motion of the earth.
Unlike the atmosphere, a thin layer of very non-dense air, you're talking about the motion of the entire earth, a vastly larger amount of mass, by a half-dozen orders of magnitude.
As with the atmosphere, you might be able to cause some environmental issues, but the planet as a whole doesn't much notice what we do.
Re:Gravitational issues? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 11:12 · Score: 0

Oh Gawd...Shut the FUCK UP!
Obviously the microwave towers have scrambled you brains.
Re:Gravitational issues? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 12:46 · Score: 1

They use waves, not tides to generate power.
Re:Gravitational issues? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 13:05 · Score: 1

That is also true for poisoning the entire atmosphere. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. ;)
I think: Why do it, when you can do something that is not only way better, cheaper, easier to repair and environmentally friendly, but even has a positive effect on the environment!
I talk about Project Desertec. (Concentrated solar power in the south + pumped-storage hydroelectricity in the north, with high-voltage DC wires in-between.)
The mirrors have been found to collect a bit of water from the air, and shade the sand, allowing plants and small animals to thrive in the previously dead sand. If built at a place where it doesn't take away vapor that would be needed somewhere else, I don't know a single solution with that little downsides.
The only problem would be, if you build the things in foreign countries. But the US has enough hot dead desert in Arizona alone, to power the entire US multiple times over. So this is a non-issue for you.
Re:Gravitational issues? by bobstreo · 2011-07-22 14:25 · Score: 1

Ok good, they can build all of them they want to. Preferable near places where wealthy people have spent way too much
money on their summer enclaves.
Re:Gravitational issues? by ScrewMaster · 2011-07-22 19:54 · Score: 1

Oh Gawd...Shut the FUCK UP!
Obviously the microwave towers have scrambled you brains.
They stopped using the towers years ago because we were on to them. Now they use satellites. Much harder to detect.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Just don't put them by Quila · 2011-07-22 10:49 · Score: 2

Where a big-wig senator thinks it'll interfere with his view of the sea or his enjoyment of sailing his yacht.

Oh yeah, he's dead -- full spead ahead!

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by LordLimecat · 2011-07-22 10:50 · Score: 1

Clearly he was wrong, and a troll, therefore he represents Republicans-- is that how it works?

Very clever jab, well done.

So Intel's been sitting on its ass by Quila · 2011-07-22 11:00 · Score: 2

For the last couple decades while all these vastly faster and more efficient processors just magically sprung from Obama's immaculate ass?

There's plenty of research being done.

Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by riverat1 · 2011-07-22 12:05 · Score: 0

All research with a clear short term benefit in mind. How much research into quantum computing has Intel done? That's all university research at this stage with probably mostly government funding.
Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by wagnerrp · 2011-07-22 12:54 · Score: 1

There is development and improvement being done. You take an existing x86 core and you improve the manufacturing process, you shrink the process size, you rework the instruction dispatcher, you add a memory controller, you add another layer of caching. These are all relatively low risk, evolutionary improvements, with a clear and near term financial payoff. What the OP is stating is that there is no private funding for high risk research. Intel is not putting large sums of money towards finding a replacement for silicon semiconductors, for the point 15-20 years down the line when quantum uncertainty gives us an insurmountable wall, effectively destroying the corporate strategy Intel has been running on since the 60s.
That kind of research with no perceivable near term gain is the kind of thing that made Bell Labs and PARC so renowned, and is now only being done through government grants.
Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-07-22 15:23 · Score: 1

All research with a clear short term benefit in mind. How much research into quantum computing has Intel done? That's all university research at this stage with probably mostly government funding.
Intel's Strategic Research Group has about $4 billion a year to spend researching next generation processors, including quantum computing. Microsoft Research has $10 billion a year, and spends a chunk of that on quantum computing research as well. The private sector dumps a ton of cash into basic, fundamental research. But it does so with an eye towards eventual economic returns, rather than research for research's sake. You'd be surprised how much actual hard, beneficial research is done by big corporations, and how much of that research done by Governments is into things like the mating habits of grunions.
Disclaimer: I have worked for Microsoft Research in the past, and I have also performed and provided equipment for marine research for the US, Canadian, and other governmental agencies.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by robot256 · 2011-07-22 16:19 · Score: 1

I'm curious how much of that research that companies do actually makes it to the light of day. Granted, university research is frequently stuck behind journal paywalls as well, but is there any comparison to be made? How much research that doesn't result in a patent actually gets published for others to use?
Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-07-22 20:44 · Score: 1

I'm curious how much of that research that companies do actually makes it to the light of day. Granted, university research is frequently stuck behind journal paywalls as well, but is there any comparison to be made? How much research that doesn't result in a patent actually gets published for others to use?
A surprising amount of it never reaches the light of day - as originally researched. Usually spinoffs or alternate applications do ultimately make it into the market place.
As far as universities go, it's amazing how much money is sent from the private sector to those universities to perform research. It's a "cheap" way to buy great research. A sizable chunk of research done at US universities is, in fact, funded with private funds via grants. It's not quite the "Government is the only one who ever pays for general research" meme often put about.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by TheRaven64 · 2011-07-22 22:35 · Score: 1

Quite a lot. Microsoft Research publishes a lot of very interesting papers. If 10% of their output made it into shipping products, I'd probably be a Windows user...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by Coren22 · 2011-07-26 04:33 · Score: 1

When Intel hits that insurmountable wall, I see more applications of micro tubules to move water through the processor and then moving 3D. What is wrong with a .5" on a side cube with water cooling instead of a .5" on a side square?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:So Intel's been sitting on its ass by wagnerrp · 2011-07-26 05:01 · Score: 1

Manufacturing cost.

The government is probably necessary by Quila · 2011-07-22 11:07 · Score: 2

Any private company doing this will get railroaded by the "environmentalists." And by that in quotes I mean those people who are against progress at all costs, BANANA, and not necessarily for the environment. You know, the people that caused Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore to leave the organization.

At least with the backing of FedGov they might have a chance to get something done instead of having their project put on hold in the courts until it dies.

Re:The government is probably necessary by ScrewMaster · 2011-07-22 19:45 · Score: 0

Any private company doing this will get railroaded by the "environmentalists." And by that in quotes I mean those people who are against progress at all costs, BANANA, and not necessarily for the environment. You know, the people that caused Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore to leave the organization.
The reality of this is, no matter what you do to generate electric power, someone will be against it and will take you to court over it. These people don't have any ability to help, so all they can do is hinder. I think that many so-called "environmentalists" won't be happy until they've brought down civilization and reduced us to living in caves again.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:The government is probably necessary by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-24 02:55 · Score: 1

Nice straw man you have there.
I'm not an environmentalist but I am a realist, perhaps even a cynic. I see the endless fuck-ups at nuclear plants in the UK and the rest of the world, mostly due to human and economic factors, and think to myself "given the choice I'd rather not trust a for-profit company to run one of these things. You can argue all you want about developing safer reactors and better re-processing but no matter what you do you will never completely eliminate that risk. When things do go wrong the consequences can be pretty dire.
I also don't like pollution, especially since I actually live near a rubbish burning plant and find that an surface which goes uncleaned for a few days builds up a later of soot. Burning fossil fuel isn't a good alternative. Fortunately we now have another option in the form of renewable energy. At this point I'm sure you would point out how it is in no way ready and how we will all be sent back to the stone age every time a cloud passes overhead, but that simply is not the case. The technology has been proven to be reliable for 24/7 generation all year round, we just need to deploy it on a larger scale and develop it a bit further. Don't forget that the UK is part of the EU and we already buy a lot of energy from other countries (electricity, gas, coal, oil) so we are not limited to what we can get from our own island either. Given the choice of funding that or funding nuclear I know where I would like to see my tax money spent.
The sooner we get away from using fuel to generate power the better. Fuel prices are continually rising as world demand increases and it gets harder to extract from the ground. Light, tidal forces, geothermal and wind are all pretty much unlimited and we have more than enough room to power the entire world, e.g. solar thermal would need just 3% of the Sahara to provide electricity for the whole of western Europe. Better still we have an opportunity to get in early and run these projects, rather than being reliant on the middle east and Russia for much of our supplies (electric and solar heating mitigates the need for gas, electric or hydrogen cars cut out dependency on oil).
I don't know why people are so down on this. Cool tech, reduced dependence on people who don't really like us, less pollution, cheaper energy...

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:The government is probably necessary by ScrewMaster · 2011-07-24 03:43 · Score: 1

To whoever modded me down, how about not using the troll mod to express disagreement, but giving me a rational counterargument instead. The fact is, the environmentalist lobby has done much to limit or prevent progress in this area. You cannot generate the terawatts of power required by our civilization without some consequences. Expecting that to happen without risk is not even remotely reasonable.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

What they should attempt by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 11:11 · Score: 0

is coupling ocean wave power, solar power, and wind power with producing hydrogen from water. Use the "free" fuel available to manufacture and store hydrogen, and pipe it around the country for use in large distributed fuel cells. There are many technology hurdles due to storage, transportation, and large consumption of hydrogen, fuel cell development and use of inverters, but it's a scale up from what there is today. All the technology is well understood. It won't knock nuclear, coal, or gas off the base load market but it could replace a majority of the peaking power which is today produced by gas turbines and old steam boilers. I understand NREL has looked at this before. As a power plant engineer for the past 30 years I've worked on many projects, and this is one that I wouldn't mind hanging my hat on.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by Chris+Burke · 2011-07-22 11:18 · Score: 1

Exactly. Real Research does not come with a guarantee of a payoff. You may have worked in R&D devisions, but they do not do Bell Labs, Xerox PARC levels of research. These days only short term payoff kinds of research are done privately. Thanks for proving the GPs point for him.

Bell Labs doesn't do Bell Labs levels of research anymore. :(

There are still some companies investing in basic research, but even they have shifted most of it over to application-driven research with clearer near-term benefit.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by kent_eh · 2011-07-22 11:36 · Score: 1

It's... an... experiment. To see if it's feasible.

At least someone gets it.

Also, how come the naysayers always want to put all the country's future energy eggs into one basket?

- Fusion is great, assuming it can be built.
- Fission is proven, and the newest designs significantly reduce many of the problems with the older designs. But it still has political problems.
- Hydroelectric is renewable, and fairly clean, assuming proper planning and site preparation is done.
- Biofuels (especially if sourced from by-products and waste) also work well to replace fossil fuels in many applications.
- Solar and wind are coming along in efficiency, but could be much better with improvements in energy storage. (the wind and sun aren't always present 24/7)

Why build only one?
Diversification. It works.
It's always good to have a "plan B" (and "C") for when something unforeseen happens.

--

---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh

hey! by Osgeld · 2011-07-22 11:45 · Score: 1

that is less than a fraction of the Constellation program and it might produce results that benifits mankind here on earth for generations, and not some future man in year 3000 on Uranus

Re:hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:41 · Score: 0

...not some future man in year 3000 on Uranus
Oh, I guess the song will have to be rewritten.
In the year 3535,
Mankind will not survive
Uranus wont provide
And they die-eeeeeee ...
Re:hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 02:52 · Score: 0

OK, you pay for it, but don't make the rest of us.
Re:hey! by Osgeld · 2011-07-23 05:29 · Score: 1

fine but dont come crying to me when OPEC fucks you up the ass again

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by Trilkin · 2011-07-22 11:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

To be fair, most people that would make stupid Obama name jokes tend to be Republican.

--
Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by riverat1 · 2011-07-22 12:08 · Score: 1

The poster must think Obama's a communist. For the new definition of communism that is. Anyone who isn't in favor of privatizing everything has at least communist leanings.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by 10101001+10101001 · 2011-07-22 12:17 · Score: 1

There's an odd little paradox I've thought about. Why is it that California, a bastion of environmentalism, large bulging government, and tons of regulation, has such a relatively robust economy compared to most other US states? Cheap labor? No, there's lots of migrant workers in the US. Perhaps it's ready access to electricity and oil? No, California is pretty notorious for having higher electricity and gas prices.

Maybe, then, it has something to do with recycling. Consider Japan which has virtually no natural resources to rely upon, including oil, which also has a robust economy and electricity availability troubles. To that end, recycling is a major economic consideration precisely because recycling is less energy intensive, especially for things like aluminum production. And as much as it has been noted that energy efficient standards, which California strongly pushes, can have the paradoxical effect of increasing energy consumption, it also tends to translates into completing more effective work--imagine the person who can complete one task with a gallon of gas in a 30MPG car vs the person who completes two tasks with one and a half gallons of gas in a 50MPG car.

Of course, in Japan recycling is a government pushed civic duty. And in California, it's a socially pushed norm invoked by environmentalist. Meanwhile, in a large part of the US, recycling is at best haphazardly followed and usually only the more economically advantageous parts, like aluminum can collection.

With the mindset of individualism and even anti-environmentalism and anti-government sentiment, I can certainly see why if mass recycling is a part of the short-term energy solution in the US there's been relatively little push by Democrats for a recycling program, even if they could sell it on the idea of patriotism. But, top down, government funded renewable energy platforms aren't a real solution either, if nothing else because there isn't a joint, bi-partisan support for such projects so their effectiveness is at best short-term and at worst they're not effective at all. Meanwhile, pushing for more recycling is virtually free in comparison. It's ironic to me that conservatives aren't pushing for conserving oil, conserving energy, or any part of recycling as a part of saving money, by increasing the supply of paper, plastic, aluminum, etc to decrease the price. But, then, Republicans are hardly conservative; they're the "you don't have to make sacrifices or put any effort into anything to solve problems--even though inherently we're for cutting government programs on the basis that private/charitable/social organizations will take over--and oh, by the way, we can always cut your taxes" party.

I guess that ends my rant.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h

Re:Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 13:07 · Score: 0

The weather is nice, the food is good, and they are living off the legacy of previous generations that didn't have to deal with tons of red tape.
The question isn't how good their economy is but how good it could be.
Re:Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 13:56 · Score: 0

Did you just say California has a relatively robust economy? Is that why I see all these fucking Clitifornians moving to Texas in droves? Or do you mean relative to the South which is still enduring 'reconstruction'?
Re:Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by drinkypoo · 2011-07-23 00:29 · Score: 1

California's economy comes from three places. Silicon Valley etc., Hollywood, and the underground black market economy dealing in trading illegal goods; just one of those goods surpassed wine last year (if not sooner) and continues to gain popularity. It has nothing to do with recycling, which is an expensive boondoggle. We lost a waste transfer plant because it could not afford to continue to operate if it has to separate people's trash. It costs more energy to recycle glass than to make new glass; we ought to be dumping it into the middle of the ocean to increase the world's supply of smooth beach glass or something, it would make more sense than what we are doing now. Maybe outlaw the most offensive additives. Plastic recycling is even worse, although we DO now have a barely energy-positive way to recycle all plastics. Recycled plastics are not used for fancy clear beverage bottles because the slightest contamination causes pinholing... I had an interesting conversation about it when on vacation in Panama with a guy who had invented a process for electrically testing the bottles his employer made from recycled plastics.
About the only stuff that is recycled very successfully is steel and aluminum; you actually do save energy. Unfortunately, steel recycling in particular is one of the dirtiest enterprises on the planet; it's all just crushed, shredded, and smelted, and the impurities simply burned off.
I guess that ends your rant.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by LunaticTippy · 2011-07-25 09:18 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and the black market combined don't break the top 3. The top 3 in CA economy are Real Estate, Education/Health care, Trade/Transportation/Utilities. #4 is probably government, at 12%, depending on how you count the black market and Silicon Valley values.

I was curious about how things stack up and was shocked to see agriculture at 2%. I figured it would be much higher.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by drinkypoo · 2011-07-25 22:13 · Score: 1

Real Estate is bullshit, however; it mostly involves shuffling of money from one party to another without actually doing any work. It's these other items that permit the state to exist; without the items I mentioned California would exist basically to operate ports. Los Angeles exists in its current form because of Hollywood, for example.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

one way to opt out of this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 12:30 · Score: 0

one way to opt out of this government's money drain is to quit the country.

It would have more impact on energy production... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 13:05 · Score: 0

The fed would be better off giving them 50 million 1 dollars bills.

It would produce more energy than this idea ever will.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by flyneye · 2011-07-22 13:13 · Score: 1

STFU and take four Advil ,whiner.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

3.2 megawatts by russotto · 2011-07-22 13:16 · Score: 2

3.2 megawatts in 2 years? Great job, guys. In 200 years you might be able to replace a coal plant.

Re:3.2 megawatts by hedwards · 2011-07-22 13:24 · Score: 0

3.2 megawatts for a pilot project is perfectly reasonable, if it works as well as hoped they'll apply for permits to build more, and probably be granted the permits.
Re:3.2 megawatts by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 14:50 · Score: 0

And then eco-terror groups will demand endless environmental impact studies and keep the permits held up in court for a decade. The "Green" movement isn't about saving the planet. It's about blocking the progress of mankind in response to some twisted belief that they've somehow sinned against Gaia. It's where all of the disenchanted misanthropic do-nothings ran to after the fall of their beloved USSR.
Re:3.2 megawatts by ScrewMaster · 2011-07-22 19:58 · Score: 1

And then eco-terror groups will demand endless environmental impact studies and keep the permits held up in court for a decade. The "Green" movement isn't about saving the planet. It's about blocking the progress of mankind in response to some twisted belief that they've somehow sinned against Gaia. It's where all of the disenchanted misanthropic do-nothings ran to after the fall of their beloved USSR.
I read a story years ago (don't remember who wrote it) about a future society where the government had set up a fake enemy for all the fruitcakes to protest against. At the end, the main character comments that the government was now able to build power plants, roads, and do all the things necessary to maintain civilization, since the natural born protesters were being successfully distracted.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:3.2 megawatts by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 06:13 · Score: 0

Let me translate that for you. We need to justify raising the debt limit on our quest to downgrade the US dollar as the reserve currency. If it was economically feasible, private industry and investors would have jumped at the chance of the next great thing in power.
This is another investment with no returns to spend the American tax dollar and increase the pressure to raise the debt ceiling.
Remember, the checks won't go out to Grandmother if we don't borrow more money.
I don't understand the push to become another Ireland, Greece, Georgia, North Korea, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, Nicaragua, Germany, Hungary, or any of the other places that have made their currency worthless. Those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
Re:3.2 megawatts by greylion3 · 2011-07-23 06:16 · Score: 1

You are assuming a constant deployment rate.
Assumption is the mother of all .......
(I'll let you find / figure out the last word on your own).

--
Privacy begins with ..
Re:3.2 megawatts by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-24 02:20 · Score: 1

This is like saying "put a man in space in 2 years? Great job, guys. In 200 years you might be able to put a man on the moon."
Technology does not tend to scale linearly. Like Moore's Law these things increase exponentially.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Totally unacceptable waste by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 13:24 · Score: 0, Insightful

I find in unconscionable that we are doing this with a deficit as large as ours. Exploring such things when you're in the black is one thing; there will be no return on these funds.

Re:Totally unacceptable waste by artor3 · 2011-07-22 14:48 · Score: 2

Nonsense. One should always be investing, even when in debt. If I'm broke, you can bet your ass that I'll borrow money to travel to job interviews. Austerity makes for good sound bites, but in practice it's a disaster.
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by riverat1 · 2011-07-22 14:52 · Score: 2

Call it investing in the future. Not all investments work out but you never know unless you try.
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by ScrewMaster · 2011-07-22 20:02 · Score: 2

I find in unconscionable that we are doing this with a deficit as large as ours. Exploring such things when you're in the black is one thing; there will be no return on these funds.
Are you trolling? Basic research should always continue. We won't be able to solve our problems until we learn how, and the way to do that is ... research. One cannot reasonably expect all lines of research to pay off: most don't. But the ones that do produce great rewards, and history has demonstrated, very clearly, that in the long run we've always been better off making an investment in knowledge. To not do so is shooting ourselves squarely in the foot, and selling ourselves short into the bargain.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by Ginger+Unicorn · 2011-07-22 22:07 · Score: 1

And what's wrong with letting the free market do the R&D?
The free market is preoccupied with next quarter's returns. There is no next quarter return with basic scientific research. Or next year. Or next 5 years.

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by tyrione · 2011-07-22 22:23 · Score: 1

I find in unconscionable that we are doing this with a deficit as large as ours. Exploring such things when you're in the black is one thing; there will be no return on these funds.
On the contrary, exploring alternatives to the status quo that put us in the Red is exactly the right approach to finding solutions to strip ourselves of the last century's oligopolies.
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by bobbuck · 2011-07-23 01:40 · Score: 0

You're an idiot. If markets aren't forward looking, how the hell do 30 year bonds get sold?
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 08:23 · Score: 0

And what's wrong with letting the free market do the R&D?
The free market is preoccupied with next quarter's returns. There is no next quarter return with basic scientific research. Or next year. Or next 5 years.
That is without a doubt the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Do they not teach basic economics is high school any more?
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by Ginger+Unicorn · 2011-07-23 23:01 · Score: 1

Ignorant of what? And no, economics was not taught at my high school, I know practically nothing about it other than the random incoherent soundbites that I pick up at places like this. Apparently the free market isn't preoccupied by next quarter's returns, as evidenced by the histrionic overreactions provoked by me asserting that it was.

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by Ginger+Unicorn · 2011-07-23 23:13 · Score: 1

The markets must be forward looking, or 30 year bonds would not sell.
That's a far more civil conversation.
Thankyou for pointing out an obvious hole in my understanding. I'm glad to have learned some basic economics.
I'm not an idiot, and I'm sure in real life you aren't so aggressive and rude.

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Re:Totally unacceptable waste by bobbuck · 2011-07-23 23:38 · Score: 1

You're right. That was mean. I apologize.

Puns by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 13:38 · Score: 1

I wanted to throw out some puns to counter the one in the title, but I got nothing.

You might even say that I...

Yeah I got nothing.

Wiggle words by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 13:47 · Score: 0

"probably mostly" leaves an awful lot of uncertainty and wiggle room when making an absolute claim.

Re:Wiggle words by riverat1 · 2011-07-22 14:36 · Score: 1

Yes, I was too lazy to take the time look it up. I'd be interested is someone proved me wrong.

I still prefer point-of-use energy.... by ibsteve2u · 2011-07-22 16:28 · Score: 1

Point-of-use energy energy generation offers the American people the opportunity for independence from the energy monopolies and the private taxes that they levy (they call those private taxes "profit"). Important, in an era of artificially suppressed wages. Additionally, point-of-use energy offers the opportunity to defund the nastiest of our politicians...a good thing, in a democracy. So support it!.

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"

Re:I still prefer point-of-use energy.... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-07-23 00:51 · Score: 2

energy monopolies and the private taxes that they levy (they call those private taxes "profit")
It should be noted that your so-called "private taxes" differ from real taxes in one significant way - the energy monopolies can't throw you in jail for not paying them.
Though, I'm curious - do you actually believe that the people who manufacture the hardware you'll be using for your point-of-use energy generation won't be making a profit when they sell them to you?

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:I still prefer point-of-use energy.... by ibsteve2u · 2011-07-23 02:07 · Score: 1

It should be noted that your so-called "private taxes" differ from real taxes in one significant way - the energy monopolies can't throw you in jail for not paying them.
Though, I'm curious - do you actually believe that the people who manufacture the hardware you'll be using for your point-of-use energy generation won't be making a profit when they sell them to you?
I would think (particularly given the increasingly "conservatively" corrupt state of the SCOTUS) that you should have appended "yet" to your first sentence...and they can already use liens and court judgements that yield garnishments to throw you out of your residence (or even an apartment...you won't be able to stay in yours if enough is being garnished to make you incapable of meeting your expenses), which can be a fate worse than jail given the hazards of exposure to the elements, crime, etc.

Regarding your second sentence, there is a big difference between a one-off payment to purchase an energy source and what the energy monopolies do in the way of raising rates/prices whenever the CEO of some corporation in the energy harvesting, generation, or distribution system or a speculator in the carbonaceous energy sources wants a new yacht for their kid...or when it appears that the American people have a couple of loose pennies to rub together...or when a "private investor group" demands higher dividends for themselves...or on a whim...or whatever drives their decision to begin gouging again.

There is no true effective difference to the consumer between "profit" and taxes, except the consumer doesn't have a prayer of controlling the amount of extortion involved with the former if the product or service is a necessity and sufficiently monopolized, as is most definitely the case with energy.

At least with government taxes you can vote change in.

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Re:I still prefer point-of-use energy.... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-07-23 02:43 · Score: 1

and they can already use liens and court judgements that yield garnishments to throw you out of your residence
Only if you buy their product and refuse to pay for it.
Which isn't quite the same as "refuse to pay your taxes"...

Regarding your second sentence, there is a big difference between a one-off payment to purchase an energy source and what the energy monopolies do in the way of raising rates/prices whenever the CEO of some corporation in the energy harvesting, generation, or distribution system or a speculator in the carbonaceous energy sources wants a new yacht for their kid...or when it appears that the American people have a couple of loose pennies to rub together...or when a "private investor group" demands higher dividends for themselves...or on a whim...or whatever drives their decision to begin gouging again.
Well, that might be true if it were a "one-off" payment. It's not. The hardware will require maintenance (which can range from cheap to more expensive than the original hardware). And the CEO's of the companies that make your hardware will have you over exactly the same (imaginary) barrel you think that the "energy monopoly" CEO's do.
By the way, to put things in perspective, your utilities (gas and electric) have lower profit margins than your ISP's do, in general. Much lower.
They also have lower profit margins than makers of things like soap, detergent, air fresheners, etc.
Or camera makers.
Or a lot of other things.
Note, by the way, that the only way your point of service power generation can approach the cost-effectiveness of paying the electric company is if you include the massive taxpayer subsidies (30% at the Federal level, last I checked. And many States offer subsidies in addition to those).
And remember that if EVERYONE decides to take advantage of those subsidies, it becomes a matter of "I'll pay for yours if you'll pay for mine - in other words, the subsidies are only meaningful if few people use them.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:I still prefer point-of-use energy.... by ibsteve2u · 2011-07-23 04:32 · Score: 1

I disagree.

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Re:I still prefer point-of-use energy.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 04:49 · Score: 0

Ha! You know what I do? Instead of paying all that money up front for the ultra-expensive "clean energy" BS, I simply put all that capital into power utility's bonds, then use the interest to pay my bill to them.
For my house, I use about 3kW of power (20,000kWh/year) To satisfy this from solar, I would need at least a 20kW installation costing me $80k-$100k in up-front costs alone! For $80k bond, at 3.8%, I get $3,000 per year. That pays for my entire year's power costs and then some. Heck, it even pays for inflation adjusted increase AND the energy bill! Basically, I can get my bill paid, I can increase my investment by inflation adjusted rate AND don't have to do any maintenance myself.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by Culture20 · 2011-07-22 23:32 · Score: 1

using intellectual as a sneer
Typical of the Teabagger know-nothing contingent.

GP wasn't using intellectual as a sneer, he was using "intellectual" as sneer. The quotes imply a false self aggrandizement that "intellectuals" do, but intellectuals do not.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by drinkypoo · 2011-07-23 00:33 · Score: 1

- Hydroelectric is renewable, and fairly clean, assuming proper planning and site preparation is done.

All correct except this. Hydro is neither renewable (dams fill in over time) nor clean (it's a gigantic mess, ecologically) and nobody should be building dams of any size. Fish ladders don't work. The bigger the dam project, the bigger the fail.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by flyneye · 2011-07-23 01:52 · Score: 1

I'll celebrate intellect. When it shows up.
You're the kind of idiot who "Must have money because they haven't taken my credit card away".
I'll repeat it using smaller words for you.We need to continue to fund the half funded projects we already have rather than let them languish while we try your boyfriends new "tech du jour". If we improve and expand what we have quickly enough with technologies already under construction, then there is no need to take two steps back and wait longer for Repubmocrat boy to bureaucratize more technology into existence.
He is only doing and saying these things because he knows you are no smarter than a child who believes everything he is told.
Give up some pennies for the Wind farms, Solar tech and Gosh!, even battery technology needs to come first before 10,000 other bright ideas or none of them do any fucking good. Try thinking shit through a bit more or go ask your dad before criticizing me.
Microcephalic Buttsucker.

Go be the pivot boy at the Repubmocrat circle jerk.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Government is not a venture capitalist by amightywind · 2011-07-23 02:42 · Score: 0

If the idea has merit it would be funded by the market. The government should not be a venture capitalist. Obama's crony capitalism, where winners are hectored for making profits and losers receive government bailouts, is the reason why the recovery is so weak.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Re:Government is not a venture capitalist by Osgeld · 2011-07-23 05:30 · Score: 1

what market, you would be taking an idea to a monoploy who has no interest
this is not tivo your talking about, its a major utility

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by LordLimecat · 2011-07-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Dunno about name jokes, but often enough Jon Stewart mocks Obama, and Ive never heard him being accused of being a Republican.

Rather not trust a for-profit company? by Quila · 2011-07-24 12:22 · Score: 1

Tell me, what for-profit company was in charge of the deadliest commercial nuclear power plant, ever?

Oh yeah, it wasn't a company, it was a government.

"Don't forget that the UK is part of the EU and we already buy a lot of energy from other countries"

Yes, France, which means nuclear.

"I don't know why people are so down on this. "

The tech does look interesting. That's why I wouldn't like to see it get derailed in court by environmentalists.

Re:Rather not trust a for-profit company? by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-24 23:50 · Score: 1

You are really quite good at building straw men, aren't you?

Tell me, what for-profit company was in charge of the deadliest commercial nuclear power plant, ever?
So... your argument is that because the worst disaster ever was at a government run facility that means privately run ones are safe? Or that we can't trust the government to run things, even though I wasn't suggesting that they should?

Yes, France, which means nuclear.
Good effort once again. I was actually just pointing out that the typical argument against importing renewable energy is that we become reliant on other countries, when in face we already are. I then went on to point out that we could reduce that reliance and move it to more stable, friendly countries.

The tech does look interesting. That's why I wouldn't like to see it get derailed in court by environmentalists.
Good job that isn't happening them. Or can you provide evidence to prove otherwise? A news story perhaps?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Rather not trust a for-profit company? by Quila · 2011-07-25 02:05 · Score: 1

"your argument is that because the worst disaster ever was at a government run facility that means privately run ones are safe?"
No, my argument is that government isn't necessarily superior. It's a knee-jerk reaction from the left -- private enterprise sucks. Same as the knee-jerk reaction from the right -- government sucks. Either can be done well, either can be done poorly.
"I then went on to point out that we could reduce that reliance and move it to more stable, friendly countries."
Or you could go nuclear like France and break that reliance.
" Or can you provide evidence to prove otherwise?"
A trend. So-called environmentalists are even getting their panties in a bunch over the environmental impacts of solar installations, apparently they're worried about the ecological impact of the sun not hitting the ground as usual. They go apopletic when we consider building that very clean renewable energy source -- hydroelectric dams.
This isn't about saving the environment. It's about stopping progress.

Even PARC was for-profit by Quila · 2011-07-25 01:44 · Score: 1

Ever heard of the laser printer?

It's mainly because of the GUI and such that PARC is thought of as some pure research organization. But even with the Alto Xerox tried to commercialize, in the form of the Xerox Star. They just failed.

A few times a month I hear of the esoteric stuff coming out of IBM -- stuff that won't hit the shelves for another decade, if at all.

Like I said, plenty of private research being done.

Re:Even PARC was for-profit by riverat1 · 2011-07-25 14:14 · Score: 1

Ok, but what private enterprise is going to fund something like the LHC the the Hubble Telescope to name a couple of things?

"finding a replacement for silicon semiconductors" by Quila · 2011-07-25 02:40 · Score: 1

IBM has been working on that, with carbon IIRC.

Private research is alive and well.

Moving the goalposts? by Quila · 2011-07-26 03:16 · Score: 1

The claim was that NO long-term or theoretical research comes out of private funding. That is simply not true.

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by Coren22 · 2011-07-26 04:48 · Score: 1

Along with the need for the fish ladders is the problem of the vegetation that gets submerged by the lake formed by the dam. As the vegetation decomposes, it causes problems with the water in the lake killing many forms of life in the lake.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:You know what's not renewable about Obamski Adm by Trilkin · 2011-07-30 09:02 · Score: 1

Jon Stewart tends to do it in ways that are critical of what Obama is doing rather than simple, unrelated non sequiturs. Republicans just go right for the insults without saying really why. It's not because they're republican, but rather, they're republican and he's a democrat and is simply insulted by most republicans of it rather than because of his policies. If it were 2004, it'd be the same thing in reverse, although maybe a bit more colorful and, in my opinion, more justified... but that's less party politics and more what Bush himself did.

It's politics - especially American politics; one side uses dumb insults for the opposite side regardless on what they're doings imply because hey aren't wearing the same color. The same side tends to be a bit more constructive in their criticism for their own, although there seems to be a LOT more fragmentation among the Republicans than the Democrats these days... not to say there haven't been plenty of Democrats throwing Obama under the bus, but it seems MUCH worse on the other side as far as keeping their shit together.

For the record, if it must be said, I am no fan of Obama. I think it's ineffective as a president. I don't think he's anymore a liar than the next politician. I believe he's been overwhelmed by the reality of the situation in Washington and has been forced to compromised because, as witnessed, his colleagues are willing to act like children just for the sheer fact they don't like the side of the aisle he's on... but that shouldn't come as a surprise to him. So much for willing to kick some asses, Obama=(

It's not really a rag on republicans, though (I don't really side with a party. I side with whoever I think would do the best job at the time.) It's more of an acknowledgment of 'if someone is making a dumb insult, it's probably the guy wearing the different colors.' That's how a good chunk of Americans treat politics - like it's football... and with even less respect for the other side sometimes.

--
Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.

Slashdot Mirror

Obama Administration Tests the Waters With Ocean Power Startups

144 comments