There is a very real problem in the USA right now in the development and deployment of alternate energy into the grid, as the country fights amongst itself over how energy will be generated, distributed, and managed in the future. This is especially the case with solar, as it continues to mature in both energy conversion efficiency as well cost effectiveness to become a more and more attractive source of energy. Even now, when all costs are factored in, solar is now more cost-effective than some fossil fuels in many cases.

The problem is that the debate about how the USA will generate and distribute energy is being driven by ideology, not science or economics. Entrenched business and political interests are blocking solar in many ways, from condemning research expenditures to outright legislation designed to restrict the development of solar energy as a viable supplement to the nation’s growing power needs. Even much of the mainstream media is buying into the lie that solar power is not viable.

This is not only a foolish attitude, but it is ignorant of both history and market forces. In every single case where a solid-state technology was developed to address an application area, it eventually came to dominate that space. Solar is no different, and conversion efficiencies are such that it is obvious to all but the most in denial that solar is not only a viable, but a cost-effective technology. In the marketplace, American neo- and pseudo-Luddites completely forget that this is now a flat earth, and if we do not develop and deploy these technologies others will, and they will wind up dominating those future markets…

A future smart grid that properly integrated all viable alternate energy technologies would not only result in a significant reduction of dependence on fossil fuel and the resulting ecological impact (which is rarely calculated, and never accurately), but it would also create many well-paying infrastructure jobs from electronic engineers to electricians, and everything in between…

This won’t happen, at least not in any decent fashion, unless we as a country stop basing our arguments on ideology and vested interest instead of what is best for the country, its citizens, and its future. Only by properly deploying a truly smart grid that integrates all manageable types of energy with the proper controls and safeguards, including security, will the USA reach the full potential of what such an infrastructure can provide.

Alix Paultre is the only person I know who can explain quantum physics well enough for me to understand. Well, for about five minutes anyway.

Follow the link, read his editorial, read the magazine he edits.



    • Tim says:

      tl;dr , But, at least, Coulter’s mandated hormone replacement therapy is starting to bear some fruit.

      Silent Running — the end
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_fQvavqEA

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      Years of Living Dangerously on showtime last night had a study about fracking. Seems it is releasing 15 times the amount of methane the industry claims thereby making it dirtier than coal.

      GO GREEN!!!!

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Methane is not dirty.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        If you are claiming that methane is dirty because of some link to global warming, then the answer is ‘go nuke’, or if you prefer, ‘Go Thor’

        • Tim says:

          Actually, a pet musing of mine from time to time is that we did miss our ‘eden’ period of interglacial this time around because of man’s actions.

          That is to say, that this time around trees were cut down and burned, releasing co2 instead of the natural course of them laying around and rotting, generating much CH4 which is a far better greenhouse gas than co2, even when factoring in it’s persistance in the atmosphere.

          naturally, the great tree die-off to start with would have been due to the iceages caused by ….wait for it…. a deficiency of co2.

          • Tim says:

            Let me expand on that idea just a little — Our form of life is based on carbon. At the base of it all, that carbon comes from CO2 {photosynthesis}.

            Life will build up to meet the available levels of that gas. However, man has severely constricted where and how the life likes to be.

            Consider the suburban environment/lawns — essentially all biological activity is stopped there, especially in the winter. Most are lucky if they have a large tree, and that’s a small part of an energetic biosphere.

            So, the co2 would be expected to build up a little bit, but we’re never going to get warm enough and back to the ‘eden’ that so threatens the powers-that-be in the first place.

          • Tim says:

            clarification:

            the deficiency of CO2 is not to be interpreted as the direct cause of the cooling, but rather the resulting diminished output of CH4 due to lower biosphere energy.

      • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

        So…. is methane dirty or not?

        • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

          Sorry …. too quick.

          Yes…. when ANYONE says methane is dirty it means it is a very powerful green house gas: 700 times more powerful than co2 gas.

          Yes, in this sense, Nuke is clean. Its just dirty by other definitions as in its radioactive waste.

          Regardless, my point on Nuke would be that it makes no sense to CONCENTRATE AND CENTRALIZE a hazard like Nuke Power Plants or waste storage facilities that then become subject to terrorist attacks when GREEN ENERGY allows for a distributed system that is not the subject of a terrorism attack. Two birds with one stone so to speak.

          But “right now”—I agree==>anything is better than coal and oil and methane or any other green house gas creating process.

  1. bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

    Tim says:
    5/22/2014 at 8:34 pm

    Let me expand on that idea just a little — Our form of life is based on carbon. At the base of it all, that carbon comes from CO2 {photosynthesis}. /// Carbon comes from nuclear fusion within stars that explode thereby distributing that and other elements into the universe for use in other natural processes including but not limited to nor “from” co2. Basic Science.

    Life will build up to meet the available levels of that gas. However, man has severely constricted where and how the life likes to be. /// Gibberish. The concentrations of different gases notably co2 vs oxygen does affect how many of what kinds of animals can exist on planet Earth mostly due to the interaction with food sources. Methane appears from time to time affecting all those equations sometimes resulting in the production of H2S which again at certain levels will actually kill off most forms of multi-cellular life. Lots of variations and interactions only generallly referred to there. Again, Basic Science.

    Consider the suburban environment/lawns — essentially all biological activity is stopped there, especially in the winter. Most are lucky if they have a large tree, and that’s a small part of an energetic biosphere. /// Whats your point? Most o2 comes from algae in the ocean. Quite a bit from Jungles which are disappearing. Lawns?

    So, the co2 would be expected to build up a little bit, but we’re never going to get warm enough and back to the ‘eden’ that so threatens the powers-that-be in the first place. /// Gibberish again…. whats your point more clearly expressed? I’m guessing here: that the amount of co2 and o2 will stabilize to a narrow constant range based on the energy input to the earth. Its mans activities that are changing the variable elements to ranges that upset the standard rations that normally only change very slowly over time based on solar input….. blah, blah, blah.

    Its Science.