I still don't get way people go solar , convert DC to AC and back to DC on the device level.

Especially if someone is using LEDs.

Wow, that Faiman guy seems like a real freakshow.

could be as "cheap" as hospitals, schools and roads

I don't know about where he lives, but here in the US it would be hard to find a poorer example of something to aspire to. Hospitals, schools and the Highway Department are three of the most poorly administered agencies of our society here in the US.

Then his 100 year section is a really strange response, especially the following part:

the music and reputation of Giacomo Meyerbeer could be restored?

and

and not in the pit in which Wagner, Schumann and Mendelssohn ["That jew banker who happens to write music" (Wagner)]

since "Giacomo Meyerbeer" was the son of a "jew banker" born with the name Jacob Liebmann Beer, and a wealthy socialite too.

I think this guy has some serious emotional issues, and might benefit from some counseling.

I think Wagner said that given the (),... but what does this out of context non-sense to do with the interview? Why would Lisa Zyga even include it in the text? If it was meant as an allegory of some sort,... a little help.

Phys.org: Do you think one of these alternative energy technologies will eventually become dominant to the same extent that oil, coal, and gas are now? Why or why not?

Faiman: Probably, ONLY if the oil, coal, gas industry lets it happen, or if some powerful and independent government (e.g., China) makes it happen.

What could he mean here by "independent government"? Why give the example of China, when the USA spends about the same amount on alternatives,.. and China uses the 2nd most oil in the world AND is a developing country.

Also, the oil industry does not dictate what energy is used,.. the market does, via competition and price,.. so what he is predicting is that alternatives can never compete and it must be forced upon people ala communism.

This is wrong. Eventually oil will become more expensive; peak oil. Impatience with democracy and capitalism leads to fascism and socialism.

For the longer term, we need to develop liquid hydrogen as an alternative for hydrocarbon fuels. To this end, there are two fundamental scientific problems that must be solved: a physics problem (how to prevent the tiny hydrogen molecules from percolating out through the walls of their containment tank), and a chemistry problem (how to reduce the extreme flammability of this element).

Methane doesn't require high tech storage materials and is about the same energy density, with a ratio of just 1 carbon atom per 4 hydrogen atoms, or 1/4, compared to other hydrocarbon fuels which are 1/2 or 1/1.

Methane is currently about 10 times cheaper than gasoline on a "per unit energy" basis, and bacteria can produce it in large amounts, or you can use solar to mass produce synthetic methane in a similar fashion to diesels.

While this is not ideal, it would lower our net carbon output by a large amount compared to burning gasoline at our current rate, simply because of the lower ratio.

...It would also be nice if the music and reputation of Giacomo Meyerbeer could be restored to where Berlioz, Bizet and Saint Saens placed them, viz, on a par with "Beethoven, Leonardo and Raphael" (Bizet), and not in the pit in which Wagner, Schumann and Mendelssohn ["That jew banker who happens to write music" (Wagner)] successfully buried them during the 20th century.

Maybe he meant this as an allegory in that 'we have a prejudice towards anything other than fossil fuels', even though they are just as good. If so,.. it doesn't make any sense. People use oil based on economic reasons and availability, not emotional predilection. If alternatives could compete with oil and make economic sense, who would care where the energy came from?

Noumenon:

The oil companies pay half the tax rate of other corporations. This means the "Market" is actually NOT favoring oil, but that the government keeps the price of oil artificially low by giving the oil companies a large tax break, due to lobbyists buying votes from our corrupt legislature.

this is why he said what he said, because the U.S. government is owned by oil and coal companies, and they DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE cheaper (longer term) energy options, because the COMPANIES would make less money in the long term, even though everyone else would benefit much more.

Oil and coal companies benefit by maintaining status quo, and artificially driving up costs of ALL energy, so that they can keep everyone in perpetual servitude to them.

Individuals would benefit most (long term) by using as much off-grid renewable power as possible, preferably made in their own back yard or roof-top.

this is why he said what he said, because the U.S. government is owned by oil and coal companies, and they DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE cheaper (longer term) energy options, because the COMPANIES would make less money in the long term, even though everyone else would benefit much more.

Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense to me, for no other reason than that those who own stock in oil companies would just as well invest in some other energy source given equal potential of return, because the resulting profit is the same colour, green. Further, oil companies are energy companies and would just as soon invest in alternatives if that market had potential,... in fact they do invest in alternatives.

Alternatives have to compete with oil. It's not that they "don't want us to have cheaper energy options", it's that investors go where the potential is,... and there is no alternatives right now that can replace oil on its scale of use. Consumers & investors control the market.

And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government. They do so because economies float on a bed of oil, and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used.

I still don't get way people go solar , convert DC to AC and back to DC on the device level.

Especially if someone is using LEDs.

Solar panels don't give out a regulated voltage wich LEDs need since they have a very small operating range (e.i 3-5 volts). Usually a class D transformer is used because it uses a high frequency meaning that a smaller coil can be used so less energy is wasted converting/regulating it.

From another part of my life: It would also be nice if the music and reputation of Giacomo Meyerbeer could be restored to where Berlioz, Bizet and Saint Saens placed them, viz, on a par with "Beethoven, Leonardo and Raphael" (Bizet), and not in the pit in which Wagner, Schumann and Mendelssohn ["That jew banker who happens to write music" (Wagner)] successfully buried them during the 20th century.

And if he had not added this non sequitur, Dayenu!

they DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE cheaper (longer term) energy options, because the COMPANIES would make less money in the long term, even though everyone else would benefit much more. Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense to me

What's nonsensical about this theory? For example our country or Poland in particular are fighting against green energy alternatives obstinately, because they're coal and energy producers - largest in the Europe. These countries are strongest deniers of anthropocentric global warming. On the other hand, the Kyoto protocol was signed in Japan, just because the Japan is forced to import most of coal. Canada supported Kyoto protocol just until they found their own oil in Alberta, and so on. The national tendencies for or against fossil energy are quite apparent: if some country generates money from fossil fuel export, no force will convince it into alternatives. Israel has no fossil fuels, so it supports solar energy.

And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government

Are you aware that ALL power sources have received MASSIVE subsidies during their startup phase? Coal, oil and nuclear? And that these old ones STILL get massive subsidies in terms of tax breaks today? And that these subsidies are an entire order of magnitude higher than what alternative energy sources have gotten when compared on a per kW generating capacity basis?

Alternative power is a better bang for the buck any day - and it lets us live in a less polluted environment (which I find nothing to sneeze at - literally).

for no other reason than that those who own stock in oil companies would just as well invest in some other energy source given equal potential of return

The point is that other energy sources DONT give an equal return on investment - but not because they are more expensive per kWh produced (they aren't) but because they are so cheap to manufacture that there is no way to monopolize the market (or at the very least divvy it up amongst a few players that can artificially set prices).

You get a lot of players in a sector that is open to anyone with just a little spare cash (individuals, small communities, ... ) - and that drives prices down. (Capitalism the way it's supposed to work, you know?)

Big oil/coal/nuclear doesn't invest there because they'd lose out any way it goes. If alternatives fail they lose the investment. If alternatives succeed they'll make less money in both sectors. So the only strategy left to them is to torpedoe alternatives whereever they can.

I still don't get way people go solar , convert DC to AC and back to DC on the device level.

Especially if someone is using LEDs.

Because (and this may be a novel thought): when the sun shines people don't need LEDs?

Solar panels don't give out a regulated voltage wich LEDs need

Since (by my above demonstrated hyper-logic) you need a buffer system in any case (the grid or an array of batteries) the output voltage of solar panels is pretty much inconsequential.

The situation in subsidies is finally changing.

http://www.scient...petitive

Noumen: "and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used." You keep trying to perpetuate this lie. Do some reading will you. There is plenty of energy in the world - solar, wind, bio fuels, geothermal, otec, nuclear. Any one of these sources could power the world - and we can transition to a mixed basket over the coming decades. Stop perpetuating lies.

Please reread my comment carefully before responding. I never said there is no other energy in the world. I happen to think that alternatives are great.

I simply reject the idiotic conspiracy theories that evil BigCarbon is making us use oil. It is used because our entire infrastructure is based on it right now,.. and there is no immediate practical replacement for it. Evil oil capitalists didn't "do this to us",.. we did it to our selves, in accord with natural instincts, by seeking the cheapest means of energy.

,.. this trend WILL continue,.. and is why alternatives must compete with oil and coal.

And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government. They do so because economies float on a bed of oil..

Are you aware that ALL power sources have received MASSIVE subsidies during their startup phase? Coal, oil and nuclear? And that these old ones STILL get massive subsidies in terms of tax breaks today? And that these subsidies are an entire order of magnitude higher than what alternative energy sources have gotten when compared on a per kW generating capacity basis?

Why do you think this is? I already answered this question in the portion of my post you didn't quote. The 'old ones' still get [tax deductions] because that is the current infrastructure in place,... while alternatives are still tentatively under development. Recall Solyndra?

The economy REQUIRES oil now, while it can live without alternatives (presently), ...that's why.

Alternative power is a better bang for the buck any day - and it lets us live in a less polluted environment (which I find nothing to sneeze at - literally).

If alternatives fail they lose the investment. If alternatives succeed they'll make less money in both sectors. So the only strategy left to them is to torpedoe alternatives whereever they can.

Not true in the long run. They will go where the demand is. As oil becomes more scarce it will become more costly, and demand will shift to alternatives. The big ENERGY companies will be waiting.

"The U.S. oil and natural gas industry invested over $121 billion between 2000 and 2007 [double that to date] in emerging energy technologies, including $12 billion in non-hydrocarbons and $42 billion in greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies. This investment represents 65% of the estimated total of $188 billion spent by U.S. based companies and the Federal government on emerging energy technologies."

Alternatives have to compete with oil. It's not that they "don't want us to have cheaper energy options", it's that investors go where the potential is,... and there is no alternatives right now that can replace oil on its scale of use. Consumers & investors control the market.

Omitting any consideration of the predilection for short term ROI is perhaps disingenuous. Investors (in stock) are not a patient lot.

Not true in the long run. They will go where the demand is. As oil becomes more scarce it will become more costly, and demand will shift to alternatives. The big ENERGY companies will be waiting.

The assumption here being that these large corporations see investment in alternative energy as the best way to generate profit. Or that, as large companies, they don't have the means to control the market.

No you didn't read my posts carefully. Stop being dishonest. Here is the full quote,..

And they don't receive tax breaks or subsidies because of evil cigar smoking lobbyists and corrupt government. They do so because economies float on a bed of oil, and there is no practical replacement for the volume of oil/coal used.

I made that statement in relation to why oil companies receive tax breaks now,... 'because that is our existing infrastructure',... 'while alternatives are still tentatively under development'.

I fully expect oil to be replaced with some other energy in the future, as an inevitability. In fact that is why I mentioned peak oil, as driving the price of oil up and giving better potential return on investment for alternatives.

There is no free market - all the markets are distorted by government involvement

That is true to some degree, but oil is traded in an open Global market, and peak-oil is a physical inevitability, and so there is no stopping it from becoming more and more expensive, because of the global market for it.

Many socialists and far left, 'social progressives', don't want the economic reality of 'peak oil' to enter into the discussions wrt AGW, because the problem will fix itself, and they would rather have social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and control over human behavior wrt energy use.

Not true in the long run. They will go where the demand is. As oil becomes more scarce it will become more costly, and demand will shift to alternatives. The big ENERGY companies will be waiting.

The assumption here being that these large corporations see investment in alternative energy as the best way to generate profit. Or that, as large companies, they don't have the means to control the market.

Eventually, yes, that is correct, and not an assumption but a fact as energy will always be needed and will always have value irrespective of its form. That oil will become more expensive to extract, is an uncontrollable physical inevitability.

No one has the omniscient and magical forethought, right this minute, to know what will replace the 80,000,000,000 barrels of oil used per day, in the future,.. thus investments at the present time are tentative and cautious.

The economy REQUIRES oil now, while it can live without alternatives (presently), ...that's why.

However life turns out to be more than economy. Global warming and the resultant problems are teaching us (the hard way) that economy doesn't mean anything if there's no place to live (or if any benefits of it are instantly eaten up by costs for damage control)

Yes: alternatives must compete with the old sources. But the measure of what 'competitive' means is not "X makes more profit" but "X lets humanity survive". Being cheaper is becoming less and less relevant.

There is a practical replacement for the volume of oil/gas used [...] It will take us a while to scale up - dir

If you have to qualify that statement with 'It will take us a while', then de facto there is no alternative ready NOW, to replace the 80,000,000,000 barrels of oil used every day, ...thus support for the existing infrastructure is still a requirement.

The economy REQUIRES oil now, while it can live without alternatives (presently), ...that's why.

However life turns out to be more than economy. Global warming and the resultant problems are teaching us (the hard way) that economy doesn't mean anything if there's no place to live (or if any benefits of it are instantly eaten up by costs for damage control)

Yes: alternatives must compete with the old sources. But the measure of what 'competitive' means is not "X makes more profit" but "X lets humanity survive". Being cheaper is becoming less and less relevant.

That is the natural mechanism that is most in-line with human nature. 'Profit' means any increase in ones condition of life. Individualism and freedom are the most efficient and powerful means available to humanity. Socialism and social engineering (planned society), works counter to that. It won't work on a large scale. It has caused more deaths and starvation than anything known in human history.
...

It should be clear, even given a cursory glance at history, that no government is omniscient with such foreknowledge that a planned out economy or infrastructure can be relied upon. Existing government FAIL to even accomplish basic things, like balancing a budget, but you expect it to choose what energy sources will be used in the future?

The change in energy form must happen gradually over time, with the natural forces of freedom and capitalism to be the arbiter of that choice, ...because such a natural process is disinterested and reacts to actual effects upon life, not just speculation as to the severity of those effects.

Do you see humanity reacting with anywhere near the same level of hysteria, to match the AGW propaganda? No. To do so, in effect means the adoption of socialism and global control over human behavior, as well as global redistribution of wealth, as admitted. This from a global authority that can't even prevent starvation and genocide in modern times.

-My original statement implied "NOW" because the discussion was about why tax breaks are given to the oil industry.

-Yes, I mean million,... don't know why i was thinking billion, thank you.

-It is not even necessary to get into the different forms of government and differences of economies of those countries, etc,... the world is increasing its consumption of oil, not decreasing it.

Noumen: the world is increasing its consumption of oil, not decreasing it.

No for the last 7 years it has not - this is a very significant piece of information for energy watchers.

http://www.google...;dur=185

That graph shows oil Production, not Consumption, which supports my contention above.

-My original statement implied "NOW" because the discussion was about why tax breaks are given to the oil industry.

Your original statement was false - there was nothing implied - learn to say what you mean.

I see you're degenerating into dishonesty.

That I was speaking about present conditions wrt tax breaks for oil the industry and thus obviously referring to the present time, ...is not in anyway contingent upon you agreeing with the original statement.

You have already acknowledged that all markets are distorted by the involvement of governments. [..] So what happens to your idealistic little free markets that don't exist. Well in reality we have a complex world - and countries you would call socialist like Germany are blazing the path - that your precious free market U.S. will have to buy their technology from if you are not smart enough to understand how the real world works.

The oil market depends fundamentally upon supply and demand,.. and also speculators of future prices, who take into account world politics, as would any investor. How does this lead you to state the absurdity "free markets that don't exist".

Perhaps you missed where I stated the following,...

It is not even necessary to get into the different forms of government and differences of economies of those countries, etc,... the world is increasing its consumption of oil, not decreasing it.

Socialism can't maintain economies in a global market.

,. which means even China must involve itself in capitalism in the global market.