NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Like it or not, the primary indicator for when new advances in technology are going to "make it" as major new shifts in society is when investors and big business begin to find them attratctive. The last one was the Internet. This time it's alternative energy or "clean tech." All I can say is, it's about frakking time!


Ready for Everything Under the Solar Panel (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/weekinreview/01gross.html)


By DANIEL GROSS
Published: January 1, 2006
UNTIL recently, the alternative energy industry was decidedly alternative. It conjured up images of off-the-grid bohemians heating their cabins with wood-burning stoves, and eccentric tinkerers tricking out cars to run on vegetable oil.

But in 2005, alternative, or renewable, energy vaulted the highly fortified border separating cottage industry and big business. With oil and gas prices soaring, the allure of alternate energy sources is apparent.

Veteran analysts of investment manias might detect eerie similarities to an era many would just as soon forget: the 1990's dot-com boom. Is a new bubble in the offing?

Let's go to the handy bubble checklist.

Hot initial public offerings? Check.

Some of the I.P.O.'s most in demand recently have been of solar energy companies. Shares of SunPower, for example, rose 41 percent on the first day of trading this fall.

Enthusiastic venture capitalists? Check.

"In 2005, we saw a tripling of venture capital money going into the solar industry compared to 2004," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Old-line companies talking the talk? Check.

In the 1990's, blue-chip companies added adjectives like interactive to the corporate lexicon. Today on General Electric's Web site, the company's chief executive, Jeff Immelt, rhapsodizes about renewables.

Government policy adding a helping hand? Check.

In the 1990's, the government appropriated taxpayer cash to build a high-speed broadband infrastructure. Today, it's subsidizing the installation of solar panels through tax credits.

New buzzwords? Check.

In the 1990's, magazines like Red Herring championed the dot-com boom. Today, Red Herring is pushing "clean tech."

Visionary entrepreneurs bent on changing the world? Check.

Bill Gross founded IdeaLab, which spawned Internet businesses that aimed to change the world. Today, he's backing Energy Innovations, which aims to build low-cost solar arrays. If his products can reduce the cost sufficiently, Mr. Gross told Red Herring, "then we will change the world."

Breathless Wall Street analysts? Check.

"This is not just the most attractive space in the energy sector, but probably the most attractive space across equity markets, period," Michael Rogol, global solar market analyst for CLSA Asia Pacific Markets, told The Wall Street Journal.

My problem with this? People are only "caring" because only now it will begin to make them a lot of money.

Yeah, because we all know that money's more important than what keeps us alive. Yeah.

Yeah, because we all know that money's more important than what keeps us alive. Yeah.
well said, and cynical... good man ;)

but the filp side of that is if it does provide cleaner energy and more renewable resources, thats a good thing whatever the motive

Let's go to the handy bubble checklist.
The article missed out the most important indication that something is a bubble and not a real shift: new companies securing massive investment despite having no business model. I don't think that's the case here.

well said, and cynical... good man ;)

but the filp side of that is if it does provide cleaner energy and more renewable resources, thats a good thing whatever the motive

True, but once they find an energy source that makes them more money, no matter how dirt it is, they'll flock to it and leave this one in the dust.

My problem with this? People are only "caring" because only now it will begin to make them a lot of money.

Yeah, because we all know that money's more important than what keeps us alive. Yeah.

I’ve never known any company that went into business to loose money. Of course, they aren’t going to make whatever it is unless they can make a profit.

People were not into alternative energy sources prior to the rise in gas prices because they couldn’t save any money.

I’ve never known any company that went into business to loose money. Of course, they aren’t going to make whatever it is unless they can make a profit.

People were not into alternative energy sources prior to the rise in gas prices because they couldn’t save any money.

Yeah, exactly. See, it's like this.

"Fuck the planet! If it makes us shitloads of money, who cares? We won't be around in a hundred years, anyway. More power to us!"

Yeah, exactly. See, it's like this.

"Fuck the planet! If it makes us shitloads of money, who cares? We won't be around in a hundred years, anyway. More power to us!"

Do you use alternative energy sources? Do you recycle? Do you purchase things made from recycled goods?

The article missed out the most important indication that something is a bubble and not a real shift: new companies securing massive investment despite having no business model. I don't think that's the case here.
Excellent point! Ten shares of the latest "clean tech" offering to you! :D

"Fuck the planet! If it makes us shitloads of money, who cares? We won't be around in a hundred years, anyway. More power to us!"
That's because capitalism promotes momentary transient pleasure above long-term plans and wisdom.

Do you use alternative energy sources? Do you recycle? Do you purchase things made from recycled goods?
Way to not answer his post!

Yeah, exactly. See, it's like this.

"Fuck the planet! If it makes us shitloads of money, who cares? We won't be around in a hundred years, anyway. More power to us!"
And you are how old??? You know there are many people out there whose planning horizon is the next earnings statment. There are also many people out there whose planning horizon is their next rave party. Your chances of changing either approach zero as a limit.

this is what I've been saying for years. Squeezing more gas mileage out of cars is counter-productive for alternative energy - it makes them less competitive. High oil costs are great for the alternative energy folks.

As far as 'Fuck the planet' people - only a dufus would believe that a person business or corporation must take an either/or attitude. Take a look at BP for a strong business model with a keen eye on global conservation.

Or just continue with your myopia - That foolishness is quite entertaining to the rest of us.

Do you use alternative energy sources? Do you recycle? Do you purchase things made from recycled goods?

1: I can't, because the alternative energy sources are too expensive. Thanks a bunch, corporate America.

2: No recycling trucks come by for pickup anymore. If I were to recycle, I'd have to walk for miles carrying boxes full of stuff. Not gonna happen.

3: Pretty hard to pick things out like that. I'd say that most cardboard boxes are made of recycled material (in fact, it says so inside most of them, so there).

It's hard to be a green freak when you're poor.

And you are how old??? You know there are many people out there whose planning horizon is the next earnings statment. There are also many people out there whose planning horizon is their next rave party. Your chances of changing either approach zero as a limit.

Ah, so you're trying to say that by not being able to change the outlook of others, I should just go with the mainstream? Oh, the logic is flawless.

That's because capitalism promotes momentary transient pleasure above long-term plans and wisdom.

Way to not answer his post!
No, it's because many people are self-centered and selfish and have major problems seeing beyond their next "fix," whether that's a monetary one or an "extacsy" one.

Ah, so you're trying to say that by not being able to change the outlook of others, I should just go with the mainstream? Oh, the logic is flawless.
I said no such thing. What I implied is that:

1. Any approach to positive change must take human nature into account.

2. Changing human nature is difficult in the extreme.

That's because capitalism promotes momentary transient pleasure above long-term plans and wisdom.
That's right! It takes a government to be able to both squander financial resources and completely ignore the long term effects of its planning.

I said no such thing. What I implied is that:

1. Any approach to positive change must take human nature into account.

2. Changing human nature is difficult in the extreme.

1: Yeah, and this "every man for himself" mentality isn't human nature.

2: True, but Capitalism seems to have done a fine job of it.

1: Yeah, and this "every man for himself" mentality isn't human nature.

2: True, but Capitalism seems to have done a fine job of it.
We've been through all of this before, so excuse me for being redundant.

1. Much of human nature is selfish.

2. Capitalism is successful because it takes this inherently selfish aspect of human nature into account. End capitalism today and tomorrow there would be a massive black market and more revolution plots than even the NSA could handle.

We've been through all of this before, so excuse me for being redundant.

1. Much of human nature is selfish.

2. Capitalism is successful because it takes this inherently selfish aspect of human nature into account. End capitalism today and tomorrow there would be a massive black market and more revolution plots than even the NSA could handle.

1: Don't you just love it? Arguing without getting through to anybody. It gives me a hell of a rush, though.

2: Selfish, yeah. But a lot of this selfishness is indoctrinated selfishness. Something called the cult of individualism. Individualism in its pure form isn't bad (in fact, it's good). Being yourself is very good, but putting pressure on others to break away from everyone else is bad. Even worse is the excess of celebrity. What really makes these people better than everyone else? Nothing. They just have a shitload of money.

3: Well, it depends on your view of "success". It's successful for those who are born in the right place at the right time. Most people in the world aren't exactly peachy with this system. And people who want to instantly put an end to Capitalism are either insane, inept, or just plain stupid. It'd end the world, really. It has to be eased out.

1: I can't, because the alternative energy sources are too expensive. Thanks a bunch, corporate America.

2: No recycling trucks come by for pickup anymore. If I were to recycle, I'd have to walk for miles carrying boxes full of stuff. Not gonna happen.

3: Pretty hard to pick things out like that. I'd say that most cardboard boxes are made of recycled material (in fact, it says so inside most of them, so there).

It's hard to be a green freak when you're poor.

You have come up with excuses to not practice what you preach. How can you say things like this when you don't even use alternative enegy sources or recycle?

"My problem with this? People are only "caring" because only now it will begin to make them a lot of money.

Yeah, because we all know that money's more important than what keeps us alive. Yeah."

You have come up with excuses to not practice what you preach. How can you say things like this when you don't even use alternative enegy sources or recycle?

"My problem with this? People are only "caring" because only now it will begin to make them a lot of money.

Yeah, because we all know that money's more important than what keeps us alive. Yeah."

It costs more money. I don't have more money. If I did, I'd have my house rewired for 12v, get a pressure flush toilet, a more efficient air conditioner, and solar panels on my roof. But, like I said, that costs $; something I simply don't have.

Not even the same thing. I have no money, while these investors and venture capitalists have buttloads of it. I don't even have enough money to make my house more efficient and help out. That's not good for anybody.

It costs more money. I don't have more money. If I did, I'd have my house rewired for 12v, get a pressure flush toilet, a more efficient air conditioner, and solar panels on my roof. But, like I said, that costs $; something I simply don't have.

Not even the same thing. I have no money, while these investors and venture capitalists have buttloads of it. I don't even have enough money to make my house more efficient and help out. That's not good for anybody.
[ wires Potaria $10,000 ] There. Now go work on your house! :p

( I wish I could do that, perhaps you wouldn't have such a bad opinion of me anymore, but I'm almost as poor as you appear to be! ) :p

It costs more money. I don't have more money. If I did, I'd have my house rewired for 12v, get a pressure flush toilet, a more efficient air conditioner, and solar panels on my roof. But, like I said, that costs $; something I simply don't have.

Not even the same thing. I have no money, while these investors and venture capitalists have buttloads of it. I don't even have enough money to make my house more efficient and help out. That's not good for anybody.

Now I fully understand your position. You don't care about alternative energy, recycling, or mother earth yourself. You don't even care about capitalism, socialism, or any other economic system. You are upset because you are "poor" and other people that you call capitalists have more money and material things than you have. That is what your problem is; jealousy. You feel you are being screwed by those that have more than you do.

So, what do you do about it? You rant, rave, and call the system unfair. Why don’t you do something constructive about improving your situation? Why not get a better job that pays more money? Why not go to school and get a better education or learn a trade so you can get a better job? Oh, and before you try the old “I don’t have the money to go to school” thing, there are many educational assistance programs such as scholarships, grants, and loans for people with limited income.

Oh boy. Amazing how fast a thread about solar energy can degenerate into a flame war.

This just in:
INTERNET FLAME WARS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING
A major scientific study by climatologists at MIT has revealed that 90% of global warming is caused by flame wars on one Internet discussion forum. Dr. Hugh Foney announced yesterday that the NationStates General forum caused more global warming in 2005 than the United States and Europe combined.

There, it's your fault. Now cut it out while we still have an Antarctic ice cap.

:p

I would like to note that solar panels and other eco-friendly technologies have been big business for years, and for example in Germany, the industry for solar panels is worth 2 billion dollars.
There are more than 50,000 jobs in wind energy alone.

I have a question for all you who would like to see more clean energy: what's so bad about nuclear power? It doesn't release any of that horrible heat-trapping compound environmentalists hate so much (that just happens to be the natural end result of respiration), CO2.

And thew fuel used is already dangerously radioactive and decaying and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Would you rather have it sit in the ground and go to waste or decay into thorium, then radium, then radon?

Also, solar power only works as long as the sun is shining! This means anything running primarily on solar power would shut down on a cloudy day.

I like the idea of clean energy, but the system has to be reliable and put out more energy than it took to set up in a reasonable amount of time. Solar power is only relaible in flat, open areas with little moisture, like a desert. But if we really wanted to live primarily off solar power, we probably should do it from space as the atmosphere filters out so much of that useful solar radiation. (suddenly ozone depletion doesn't look so bad *sigh* if only it were possible...)

And just so you know what I mean by what I said in parentheses just above; ozone is a molecule made up of 3 oxygen atoms. An oxygen atom normally only bonds to one other oxygen atom and the molecule formed, O2, is stable because each atom now has a complete set of outter electrons (8). But because atomic oxygen that hasn't stolen 2 electrons from somewhere is so darn reactive (it will bind with nearly antyhing except the lighter noble gases) it will bind to an already complete and stable molecule of oxygen (O2), forming an unstable ozone molecule. O3 has a very short half-life and will quickly revert back to O2 + O1. O2 gets split when exposed to a high voltage electric field; in the troposphere this is typically something like lightning, in the ozonosphere this is UV radiation.
When sunlight hits oxygen it gets split and the 2 pieces fly off to bind to other O2 and form 2 O3. When those O3 get hit by sunlight they breakdown and fly apart to form even more O3. So you see it is the process of forming, destroying, and reforming O3 that keeps us from getting blasted with tons of solar radiation, not just the chemicals, in fact the chemicals involved don't really matter so long as they absorb a certain amount of radiation to split.

I know what I'm talking about when it comes to chemistry, I was studying my dad's college chem books when I was in 6th grade. Oh and by the way, over 90% of Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer.

I have a question for all you who would like to see more clean energy: what's so bad about nuclear power? It doesn't release any of that horrible heat-trapping compound environmentalists hate so much (that just happens to be the natural end result of respiration), CO2.

Public opinion. Yes, nuclear energy is probably a better choice than solar is (right now, although we'll see what tech advances occurs as the market opens further and more bright minds start entering it), however, after 3-mile-island and Chernobyl, people are terrified of Nuclear power.

Also, solar power only works as long as the sun is shining! This means anything running primarily on solar power would shut down on a cloudy day.

Beleive it or not, even in the greyest, most dingey part of the US (Pacific Northwest) you can still use less energy than you produce using solar pannels on your house (because there are other means of conserving power that you can also install; Flash Water Heaters, better windows, you can use heat from the sun to heat your house, and you can generally cut back on usage considerably just by turning lights off more often). Wind is also great, because it can share space with crops without obstructing them or anything.

I know what I'm talking about when it comes to chemistry, I was studying my dad's college chem books when I was in 6th grade. Oh and by the way, over 90% of Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer.

Global warming is a misnomer. A better term would be "Global Climate Change" because the increase of heat being trapped in the atmosphere will change wind patterns which will cause massive changes in cloud-cover, precipitation, high and low pressure systems, and a bunch of other things. Certain parts of the earth will become more inhabitable (much of Canada will suddenly be much better farmland, apparently).

I think 90% is a bit of a large number, but it's possible I suppose.

Oh and Ozone blocks UV light, not heat or regular sunlight, so it wouldn't change heat. Besides which, you really don't want increased bombardment with UV light.

No, now Nuclear Power is going to TAKE OFF! YAyyy!

Y'know why yay?

Because it's cheaper than any renewable, and doesn't pollute like renewables.


Yes, renewables are heavy polluters, due to the plastics / chemicals manurfacturing processes that go into getting them running in the first place, and then the maintennance is just more chemical-powered work.

Yep, safe, clean Nuclear is the way to go... still.

Oh and Ozone blocks UV light, not heat or regular sunlight, so it wouldn't change heat. Besides which, you really don't want increased bombardment with UV light.

Why not, that's what those 'safe' solar power arrays run on! :rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: Like it or not, the primary indicator for when new advances in technology are going to "make it" as major new shifts in society is when investors and big business begin to find them attratctive.

Careful, saying this'll upset the commies and other assorted anti-capitalists and make them hijack the thread with how business is evil. ;)

Why not, that's what those 'safe' solar power arrays run on! :rolleyes:
Since when do photovoltaic cells run on UV rays alone?

Well, that's excellent. Solar power is going to be a great component of the future of power generation; if we put the time and money in to it, I think we have a limitless future in nuclear, renewables, and natural gas (since nat gas is cleaner and a hell of a lot more plentiful than oil).

Why not, that's what those 'safe' solar power arrays run on! :rolleyes:

*sigh* Are you enjoying yourself? I didn't take a side on the issue at all, in fact I think either option will work in the long run and that you're mostly right about nuclear (after all, read the rest of what I wrote). I think we both know that the human health effects of Ultraviolet light would more than counterbalance an extra dossage of UV light current solar pannel technology wouldn't even use. :rolleyes:

Your facts are close to right, although they fail to take into account some pretty important facts.

A) Keep in mind that nuclear energy DOES pollute, and the pollution it releases needs to be stored for a long, long amount of time in a highly secure facility (we can shorten the time it needs to be held now, apparently, but we can't just make it dissapear). Nuclear waste is a potential weapon to be used against civilians, because of its radioactivity. That nuclear waste needs to be transported to a safe place, meaning a single well-place attack could release it.

B) The production of plastics and the sort can be done without the use of fossil-feuls, as we have alternative hydrocarbons now.

C) The public is still terrified of Nuclear Plants, and likely it would be very difficult to get one built if people did not want it built (although the Bush administration can fix that. For every year that land intended to be a power plant is kept from being developed by a lawsuit, the government pays a compensation, so your money goes right to line their pockets).

D) The government has to insure Nuclear Plants, because no insurance agency will insure them.

C) The public is still terrified of Nuclear Plants, and likely it would be very difficult to get one built if people did not want it built (although the Bush administration can fix that. For every year that land intended to be a power plant is kept from being developed by a lawsuit, the government pays a compensation, so your money goes right to line their pockets).

Actually, public sentiment is shifting on nuclear plants; there are going to be new ones in the next few years for certain. Ironically enough, it's the people who don't live by nuclear plants that oppose them. Up here, there's a plant only a few miles away in Perry, and everyone supports it because electricity is cheap and the plant gives tons of money to local schools.

A) Keep in mind that nuclear energy DOES pollute, and the pollution it releases needs to be stored for a long, long amount of time in a highly secure facility (we can shorten the time it needs to be held now, apparently, but we can't just make it dissapear). Nuclear waste is a potential weapon to be used against civilians, because of its radioactivity. That nuclear waste needs to be transported to a safe place, meaning a single well-place attack could release it.


Some of the newest technology has reduced the half-life of waste to only 100years, and new refining processes can extract all of the weapons-grade material from it along with extra fuel for the reactor. The newest technology is simply amazing in its efficency.

A) Keep in mind that nuclear energy DOES pollute, and the pollution it releases needs to be stored for a long, long amount of time in a highly secure facility (we can shorten the time it needs to be held now, apparently, but we can't just make it dissapear). Nuclear waste is a potential weapon to be used against civilians, because of its radioactivity. That nuclear waste needs to be transported to a safe place, meaning a single well-place attack could release it.

I have a serious problem with just throwing away perfectly good fuel. If it's danergerously radioactive then it can still be used in a reactor, you just need a slightly modified design that includes the older fuel in a sort of pre-fire conditioning chamber. If it's not dangerously radioactive, then just toss it in the trash like normal chunks of metal.

The problem is that we designed the older reactors to only take new fuel rods and the because of all the legal restrictions now in place (quite a few pushed into law by environmental groups) the cost of a total refit would be way to high. It all boils down to money, not science. What we are willing to spend, not what we are capable of. Sadly we will likely never see any new plants using leftovers in combination with new fuel or old plants getting refitted in our lifetimes. This sort of thing will only happen at the last minute which is still a long ways away.

Do you know why this is? Fear. Everything comes back to fear. Fear is the ultimate motivator. One of the three primary emotions that all others stem from. Fear drives us. Guides us. Binds us. Fear.

They're supposedly building a massive solar farm (they really do call them farms, no joke) near me, someplace in Riverside county, I think.. I guess it's gonna be hunge, but I haven't heard much on it recently.. that's about all I've heard about solar power in a good while.

I like this concept. No cells, just mirrors.

http://www.solarpaces.org/SOLARTRES.HTM

Just bought a solar powered fountain for our patio garden, and if we weren't renting, you can bet we'd have solar panels up to help generate electricity--I live in Florida for crying out loud. Solar panels ought to be mandatory on all new construction down here. They are in Spain, I believe.

Solar is great as a supplimentary power source but man cannot live on light alone...unless we turned green and began drinking a lot of water for photosynthesis.

If we really wanted an infinite solar power source we'd have to find a nice little white dwarf or nuetron star and build dyson sphere around it. Not the kind where people live on the interior and the diameter is two AU, but the kind the size of a planet where people live on the exterior, using the stars gravity in place of a planets. This would eliminate the problem of spinning the sphere, which would put extreme stress on it and deform it. It would also look to be about the size of a planet (minus any oceans, unless we wanted some) as these two types of stars are so small but so hot for their size (especially the nuetron star). There'd have to be a second shell a few miles above the habitable surface to keep an atmosphere in and an interesting heater system throughout the facility to keep it at a comfortable temp. And there'd also have to be a deflection system of some sort as the whole thing would attract a lot of space junk. And then there's the whole problem of how would one of these things be built, as well as where would we get a star suitable for this kind of project. But it should work...in theory at least...

I guess we're stuck with nuclear power then, huh?

Already invested for the last six months. Early bird gets the worm. :cool:

Buy Solar panels, people! Make me rich! :D

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese

1: I can't, because the alternative energy sources are too expensive. Thanks a bunch, corporate America.

Yes, blame corporate America for all of your problems. I'm sorry, but that's just borderline moronic. Be thankful we have corporate America. Without it, we wouldn't even have POWER. NONE OF IT! No Gasoline, Coal, or Oil powerplants! So yes, we'd all be sitting around with candles, and you wouldn't have an internet forum to bitch on.

Not only that, Corporate America has never invested in any large-scale attempt like Solar or Wind power because the cost for benefit is VERY VERY LOW. Now that we have that kind of technology, without it being astronomically exprensive, we can now spend money for Alternative Energy. I'm still a big fan of Nuke Power though, so yeah.

2: No recycling trucks come by for pickup anymore. If I were to recycle, I'd have to walk for miles carrying boxes full of stuff. Not gonna happen.

Then stop bitching on this forum and go run for mayor of your town or something. My city still picks up trash, but only because we have people in charge who WANT people to still recycle and make sure that we always tell people to recycle.

3: Pretty hard to pick things out like that. I'd say that most cardboard boxes are made of recycled material (in fact, it says so inside most of them, so there).

Correct, most things anymore, especially in the realm of cardboard and paper, are made from at least 40% recycled material.

It's hard to be a green freak when you're poor.

Be a greedy capitalist for the next ten years, become an entrepreneur, make gazzilions of dollars, then you can go back to being a dirty hippie/tree hugger, and you'll have enough money to have your own tree farm and preservation, and put lots of research money into alternate energies.

And do you know why you can do the above? Because of Capitalist America

"Oh say can you see..."

I remember in 7th grade, me and my friends won the solar car competition in Chicago. Usually we would go to Colorado for Nationals, but we were cut off funding wise.