What is Digg?47 Comments
- mikbunn, on 10/27/2008, -0/+9Look up. That big bright circle in the sky isn't going anywhere, at least not before we do.
There's plenty of time, but keeping up what we've going in fossil fuel alternatives is a good idea. - inactive, on 10/26/2008, -2/+10Well, if it costs too much money, then it's not ready yet, is it? Duh.
- patpl22391, on 10/28/2008, -4/+9If it can't survive in the market-place we shouldn't subsidize it. I applaud John McCain for standing up against the corn subsidies (for ethanol) even though he loses Iowa by a big margin.
- Indyanna, on 10/26/2008, -1/+5fta: "And the global credit crisis that has sucked the wind out of the economy has done damage to the funding of alternative energy projects as well. "
Maybe this will cause the grain prices to come down, and then food prices will start to come down soon. - vault, on 10/27/2008, -0/+3Still a few years away from grid parity though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity#Grid_pari ...
- Richandler, on 10/26/2008, -3/+6It would not be the first time alternative energy failed. We cannot act like this has not been tried for the last 40 years.
- mikbunn, on 10/27/2008, -0/+3I find it pretty funny that the year for grid parity was set by W.
- mfc5200, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3It's simple I think. If oil is above $110-120 a barrel, and natural gas/coal are equally expensive, then alternative sources of energy will come about quickly because they aren't relatively that much more expensive. Private money will flow to these companies in the hope of turning a large profit one day(look at all the energy IPOs during 2005-2008). That money will be used for research, increased manufacturing facilities (scales of production which lower prices) etc.
But if oil stay where it is now, resulting in relatively cheap gasoline (Gasoline still has a few more weeks of price decreases if oil stays where it is), then alternative energy will have a hard time finding funding. Thats what I think. - borez, on 10/28/2008, -1/+4To be honest, all the viable alternatives, are not that viable at the moment. There is, as of yet, no alternative to oil, on the scale of oil. Period.
- piratearggghhh, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3We seriously need to stop this foreign oil dependence. Gas prices are going down now and OPEC has announced supply reductions pointing again to how much they have us by the balls. We spend how much on national security and corporate bailouts and we can't even invest in some new ways to get us off oil? These investments are going to pay off once these companies get on their feet and start turning a profit....or should we let foreign companies fill this need? Because I guarantee you if we don't, Asian and European companies are going to lead in the next wave of energy.
- schnikies79, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3Stop posting links to youtube and take chem 101. H2O is extremely stable and doesn't break down without a lot of energy.
Thanks. - Thinbev, on 10/28/2008, -1/+3The only way we'll have alternative energies that are economically viable will be if the politicians DON'T get involved. Why should we trust the politicians to decide which technology or company they want to subsidize with our taxpayer's money?
If we want to have alternative energies, politicians should take away ALL the complicated rules that favor the oil companies that make it very difficult to start an alternative energy company. Smart entrepreneurs will undoubtedly come up with great, cost-effective inventions, but they'll only be able to compete against the oil companies if the politicians stop favoring and protecting the oil companies. - gbudavid, on 10/26/2008, -1/+3The only venture capital I heard of was T.Boone Pickens and he has kinda faded away...
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/27/2008, -0/+2He was on 60 Minutes last night and reported that he lost $2 billion since the financial collapse.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546585n - sourceholder, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2Well, if it doesn't run on gas, then it certainly won't run out.
- RetlawST, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2I work for an alternative energy company. We JUST got VC. Today. It'll happen
- nmessick, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2Pickens advertising and promotion of green enery is really self serving, he is trying to protect the sizable investments that he has already made. Good for him if he can do that, however I don't want the government pumping money into businesses and ideas that are really doomed to fail from the start.
- Lewie, on 10/28/2008, -0/+2This doesn't work the way you think it does. Brush up on your thermodynamics. It takes energy to break the water into h2 + 02, you're not gaining anything.
- WARonTREES, on 10/28/2008, -1/+3vote nuclear/oil shale - 2012
- keithloughnane, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1Fabulous Prizes! seriously that's what got the X prize going, That's what's fueling research into the space elevator. As soon as it works well you get paid.say you can make something cool, like solar roof tiles that are as cheep as regular roof tiles, the government should put up like 500Million and a harem of hot chicks.
- thesandbender, on 10/28/2008, -1/+2Most "alternative" energy sources are intermittent. You can have a cloudy day (low solar power), there are days on the Texas plain when their is no wind (low wind power) and wave power varies with tides and weather (low wave power).
The problem energy is used as it's generated. This defies common sense b/c people are used to water towers, gas stations and grocery stores that store what we use and we just grab it when we need it. However, the "energy" your using right now was essentially at your power station a few micro/milliseconds ago. There is no capacity for storing or buffering energy on our current power grid... and creating that capacity to survive 4, 6, 12+ hour dips in production is just not feasible.
What's worse is that after hours consumption is going up as people are going home and flipping on the two computers, the tv(s), doing laundry, etc. And this is usually done after the sun has gone down or is at least waning. That eliminates one source and requires that we depend on wind and wave power. Wave power can only be generated on major coasts and transmission over long distances loses power and generates excess heat (as well as the issues with EM fields around major power lines).
Currently geothermal and atomic energy are the only carbon-free sources of power that don't suffer from this problem.
Basically, to adequately use "green" power sources we'd have to trash our current infrastructure and rebuild the whole thing. Which might not be a bad idea... it's aging and has it's own problems. But people seem to think we need to throw up a few turbines and solar panels and we're good.... and that's most certainly not the case. - dusanmal, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1There was FPL Energy who wanted to build profitable wind farm off the coast of Long Island, NY. All profitability have been killed off by years of repeated litigations and "study requests" brought by The Left eco-nuts.
Hence, all Govt. needs to do is quite cheap (free): waive enviro-study requests and exempt the wind-farm industry from litigation. There are many interested companies who could build huge capacity fast and with profit (but than, Obama will tax them out of it,... hmmm - elect McCain and waive enviro-studies and litigations... that is it). - MrFurious2k, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1People are crazy if they think car companies are in cahoots with oil companies. If a car company could build an SUV that got 100mpg, was safe, and was the same price as a conventional vehicle they'd do it in a heartbeat. They'd have the market almost overnight. Some seem to think you could suddenly mandate technology into existence. Sorry, but it's going to take time and you can't wish it into being. Politicians deal in soundbites that give them constituencies, not reality.
- bipolarruledout, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1So we can spend 700billion on ***** paper and 1-2trillion (depending on estimates) on the Iraq war but no alternative energy? That's ***** up. And unfortunately typical of this country.
- chickenloco, on 10/28/2008, -2/+3JMHO..
If the government is going to regulate fuel economy (CAFE), then they need to help Detroit and the other automakers reach that goal with funding or lighten up certain safety/emission rules.. With current technologies this goal is not possible because of Safety / EPA Regulations which add weight and cut fuel economy. Cars 25 years ago got 30 or 40 mpg+ easy because they were very light as safety rules were not as strict. - asianfox, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1Is there still coal in the ground or did we ravage the planet of that, too?
- adamward1985, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1Let's just see what happens after the elections. Gas and resources will go back up. It's all a scam. Sure wind towers are very expensive to build (aluminum isn't cheap!) but I think the best source of energy will be water or solar. Apparently they found a new way to print solar cells (search on digg).
- jeffiek, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1The advances in technology necessary for reducing cost in alternative energy don't necessarily have to come from direct research. Advances in other, profitable, fields can provide the research.
Take the CFL for example. The basic concept has been around for a century, but available technology didn't allow for their present form. The first patent on fluorescent lighting was issued in 1901, commercialized in 1941, and then more or less stalled. It took microelectronics to make the next step. That was funded, not by research in lighting, but by the personal computer manufacturers (among other products).
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_fl ...
Then, when success was in sight, the manufacturers began development of the CFL. On their own, without funding, motivated by "the carrot" of profit, in response to consumer demand. - MAGZine, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1"Will Alternative Energy Run Out Of Gas?"
No. - RipleyIsDead, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1***** T. Boone Pickens. He bankrolled the anti-Kerry swift boat ads in 2004, now he's trying to get richer by exploiting green energy. If he really wanted to promote clean energy and make some good money in the process, he wouldn't have backed Bush for reelection. He's not someone I would trust backing any initiative as important as ending our dependence on oil/coal, and he's the last person I'd ever want to see profit by it. I can't stand these bastards who manipulate the free market by going behind the scenes and dicking around with the democratic process. Either compete in the real market, or get the hell out.
- Lewie, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water ...
Tell me again how you've beaten thermodynamics. - orangetiki, on 10/29/2008, -0/+1But don't you put money into the tech to try to work on more affordable ways to produce greener energy? To me this is like a chicken and the egg routine except everyone expects it to be easy or handed to them. sadly I think it's going to take a big event to get people to think of cleaner fuels more. (IMO)
- zigardne, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1tons of it in Ohio, but EPA says no go because its dirty coal, and the big boys in PA and NY blocked any chance for further development in the 70s with the clean air act, I guess they don't like all that soot heading East with the wind.
- virgojeep, on 10/28/2008, -0/+1All I can say is funding is not a real issue for this topic and also their is more out there than just solar panels and wind turbines.
Go to www.peswiki.com
there are pages and pages of inventions for making usable energy. - kohner86, on 10/28/2008, -2/+2And it's this reason right here that I'll be voting McCain.
- nmessick, on 10/28/2008, -0/+0subsidies for ethonal have little to do with alternitive energy, and more to do with protecting our farmers from other governments who also subsidise food production. Without the government aid you'd see our food imports go though the roof and our domestic agriculture take a crap.
- ipins, on 05/08/2009, -0/+0Why not someone in authority please consider using water as the the alternative for oil. Read this on water as fuel:
http://www.hhoforums.com/
http://hhoinfo.ning.com/
http://www.justmoneymaking.net - iigab3ii, on 10/28/2008, -0/+0you no there was an electric car in the 60's and this same thing happened to it. it was even quieter then the gas powered ones.
- MAGZine, on 10/28/2008, -1/+1H by itself and expound a lot of energy - more then what's needed to separate it. Yes, it takes energy to cause the initial reaction, yes you get energy surplus.
- gkiltz, on 10/28/2008, -0/+0Not so much out of gas, as out of Government subsidies!
Reality will kick in at that point, the laws of physics and chemistry will rule and everything will take care of itself!! - RipleyIsDead, on 10/28/2008, -1/+1I don't understand where all this "mandated" weight is coming from. Cars are bigger because larger vehicles (trucks and vans) have lighter fuel economy standards and the American auto industry is lazy, not because the government mandated that everyone drive SUVs. All of our gains in fuel efficiency have been lost to more powerful engines and by replacing station wagons with SUVs and minivans.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -1/+1and how do you expect them to ready it without more funding?
there's always a development stage to new technologies and startups don't have cash reserves to dip into like RIM or Microsoft do, which is why they need investments in the first place - MAGZine, on 10/28/2008, -2/+1While it is not always the case, a combination of all of them can certainly help reduce our carbon footprint, which is a hell of a lot better then just saying: "Meh, too much work. Who gives a ***** about the environment, anyhow. *****' thing sucks!"
Turbines can help pick up wind on less sunny, cooler days, solar can benefit from the calm sunny days, and all three can help some on the in between days. We know our electrical grid is long overdue for an overhaul, and what better way to kick it off by getting new, green equipment to pump energy back into the grid. People need to live reasonably: turning off lights when not in use, cranking the furnace down in at night, and putting the 1KW computer into standby before going to bed/work. It'll make the environment (and your wallet) a much happier thing. - iamtehwinnerz, on 10/28/2008, -4/+1OMG LMFAO!!! I SEE WHAT U DID THERE!! THATS PUN-ny!!!!! LOLLLLLL HAHAHA
- Auricfield, on 10/28/2008, -4/+1For Godsake people have been making cars that can run on water for years - but of course the big oil companies have silenced them. Wake up ya all:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KZOsOB3z3IE
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is