6 ms·

I remember when the USA used to be able and willing to create interesting cutting edge technology like this. Now we're building oil pipelines, cutting car effic

I remember when the USA used to be able and willing to create interesting cutting edge technology like this. Now we're building oil pipelines, cutting car efficiency standards, and promoting coal. Anything that involves alternative energy has suddenly become "too expensive", "bad for jobs", or "liberal elitism". Soon we'll have reverted back to the 1950's, which apparently is where "we" want to be -- even back to the cold war era nuclear ramp-up. I suppose we'll also be back to building back-yard bomb shelters, I guess that will help with jobs.

Proven 10y ago
There's nothing cutting edge in lowering the living standard of citizens. Fascists and communists mastered that decades ago
timthelion 10y ago
Well, the 50s were interesting, at least, in that the US proved itself capable of accomplishing major, super-inovative projects. Actually, if the US were to do something like this, then it would be kinda 50sish in a way, wouldn't it? When was the last time that the US government set a goal that seemed unreachable, like the moon landing, or before that the rail-road across the continent and actually reached that goal? I'm not really sure I'm a big fan of such massive government projects myself though. Private companies certainly managed to build a fiberopitic data network that spans every major city, and excelent wireless phone coverage, and some really fast CPUs, and a new type of smaller light commuter jet which, along with Europes airbus, revolutionised cheep intercity travel. Unlike in the 50s, none of that was done by the feds.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  No modern CPUs without huge government programmes fifty years ago. Similarly for communications and very much so for aerospace; cheap and private now, evolved from expensive and social back then.
conjecTech 10y ago
The tax programs surrounding solar and wind in the US amount to a 50-60% subsidy of new plants. Without that, an enormous amount of the progress being made in those fields wouldn't be happening. I'm usually the first one in line to criticize the government, but in the case, the facts say something different.
sremani 10y ago
Did you ever sit down and made a back of the envelope calculation to how much "fossil" fuel needs to burn to put up Wind Turbines? Here is a good article to read, http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power... I wish this board was less susceptible to green-washing campaigns and look at this problem through more thorough scientific and engineering lens.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  ...and how much steel goes into your typical 50 or 60,000 ton oil rig? They're mostly steel after all. Given we're starting from nearly all fossil of course fossil fuel needs to burn to do just about anything. So long as there is a sensible pay-back period, and reasonable life beyond, what's it matter? Come replacement time hopefully the steel will be smelted with entirely renewable electricity. If we reach that point having to keep using some coal and oil for coke and other products we cannot get elsewhere is going to be environmentally trivial comparatively. Would you prefer to stay away from renewables and stay on fossil?
  - sremani 10y ago
    Again, over the sea rigs are already in decline. Because of shale revolution, the foot print is much much lesser.
- llukas 10y ago
  Taken from link you posted: "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year." Sounds like good payout time - wind turbines life span is typically 10+ years.
  - sremani 10y ago
    But the bottom line is this... For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels. edit: I am not against wind or solar, but they in their current form need lot more oil and that will continue for a long time, probably our life times. edit2: The previous poster partially quoted a sentence, others would be well served if they read the full sentence.

Proven 10y ago

There's nothing cutting edge in lowering the living standard of citizens. Fascists and communists mastered that decades ago

timthelion 10y ago

Well, the 50s were interesting, at least, in that the US proved itself capable of accomplishing major, super-inovative projects. Actually, if the US were to do something like this, then it would be kinda 50sish in a way, wouldn't it? When was the last time that the US government set a goal that seemed unreachable, like the moon landing, or before that the rail-road across the continent and actually reached that goal? I'm not really sure I'm a big fan of such massive government projects myself though. Private companies certainly managed to build a fiberopitic data network that spans every major city, and excelent wireless phone coverage, and some really fast CPUs, and a new type of smaller light commuter jet which, along with Europes airbus, revolutionised cheep intercity travel. Unlike in the 50s, none of that was done by the feds.

EliRivers 10y ago
No modern CPUs without huge government programmes fifty years ago. Similarly for communications and very much so for aerospace; cheap and private now, evolved from expensive and social back then.

conjecTech 10y ago

The tax programs surrounding solar and wind in the US amount to a 50-60% subsidy of new plants. Without that, an enormous amount of the progress being made in those fields wouldn't be happening. I'm usually the first one in line to criticize the government, but in the case, the facts say something different.

sremani 10y ago

Did you ever sit down and made a back of the envelope calculation to how much "fossil" fuel needs to burn to put up Wind Turbines? Here is a good article to read, http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power... I wish this board was less susceptible to green-washing campaigns and look at this problem through more thorough scientific and engineering lens.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
...and how much steel goes into your typical 50 or 60,000 ton oil rig? They're mostly steel after all. Given we're starting from nearly all fossil of course fossil fuel needs to burn to do just about anything. So long as there is a sensible pay-back period, and reasonable life beyond, what's it matter? Come replacement time hopefully the steel will be smelted with entirely renewable electricity. If we reach that point having to keep using some coal and oil for coke and other products we cannot get elsewhere is going to be environmentally trivial comparatively. Would you prefer to stay away from renewables and stay on fossil?
- sremani 10y ago
  Again, over the sea rigs are already in decline. Because of shale revolution, the foot print is much much lesser.
llukas 10y ago
Taken from link you posted: "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year." Sounds like good payout time - wind turbines life span is typically 10+ years.
- sremani 10y ago
  But the bottom line is this... For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels. edit: I am not against wind or solar, but they in their current form need lot more oil and that will continue for a long time, probably our life times. edit2: The previous poster partially quoted a sentence, others would be well served if they read the full sentence.