Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

does it seem fairly obvious to most people that alternative energy is the next 'tech boom'...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:40 PM
Original message
does it seem fairly obvious to most people that alternative energy is the next 'tech boom'...
that could help pull the economy out of a total tailspin?
it's maddening to think of what might have been, if only the money that has been spent and has yet to be spent on the criminally insane war on iraq to secure it's oil reserves for our country's future energy needs and the oily companies' future profits had instead been used to develop alternatives to our reliance on dinosaur juice. and if there had not been a coup d'etat in 2000, it could have and probably would have started to happen under a president gore.
but that doesn't mean that it can't STILL happen. people WANT it to happen. i think that it could be one of the most important issue for democrats to run on in 2008, especially if they frame it in terms of a security issue, as well as an economically lucrative one that can produce good paying manufacturing and construction jobs. less/ZERO dependence on mideast oil means no pressing need for our troops to be there. or to get caught up in future problems, from saudi arabia to kazakhstan.
as well as framing it in terms of the urgent need to curtail fossil fuel emissions in terms of global climate change.

i personally think that universal healthcare and alternative energy are by far the two most important issues that we need to address. the only reason that 'national security' is even on the radar screen is because the good ol' military-industrial complex is using it's wholly-owned mainstream media division to keep the people scared into mindlessly supporting a state of constant military build-up and spending.

the people are more than ready, and chomping at the bit to take a completely different direction as a society, and they need and WANT a LEADER who's capable of taking the country in that new direction.

if we are able to use the horrors of the iraq war and all it has wrought across all levels and aspects of our society and economy to set a new national course, then nobody will have died in vain. it seems to be such a big issue to people that their loved ones deaths NOT be 'in vain' that it's used as an excuse to continue the killing and war-mongering.
the horrors of world war 2 changed the national psyches of germany and japan...it looked for awhile like vietnam might have the same kind of lasting affect on us- it didn't. hopefully iraq, abu ghraib, and guantanamo could have the same effect on us.

but it won't.

and i guess that i've rambled away from my original point- 'Alternative Energy' HAS to be an important part of the political discourse in this election season, and a primary focus of the next president's agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mike03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. No.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:45 PM by Mike03
Certainly I could be wrong, and I hope that I am. But nobody I know who is in the investment business seriously believes that any of those energy alternatives, or stocks, has a chance, beyond maybe the IPO stage.

Maybe you have some ideas or some sort of confidence in that sector you would like to share.

That would be very much appreciated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. i'm not talking about investment opportunities...
that's not the perspective from which i view the world.

i pity those that do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, I think we're on the verge...
NPR had a program about it this weekend and it made me feel very hopeful ~ 'course then a guest mentioned how we were on the right track until Reagan removed the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House, and I was overwhelmed by frustration again. Just think where we could've been by now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Our new Dem President should make the WH as green as possible
It'll be a huge challenge, but it will also send a great message.

Screw the regressive GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. No offense to your post
But I pity any hard working middle class folks who invest their life savings in anything like you are suggesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
28. i am not suggesting anything about how anyone should invest life savings...
but if they'd like to convert over to solar, wind, etc, to power their homes, and/or an electric car like the gm EV1 in their garage- i'd like to see the technology developed that would allow that to happen in an affordable way. the $3 trillion that iraq will eventually cost us could have gone a long way toward that end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh yes
To the extent that hubby and I are considering investing in solar companies and the like. Alternative energies will become an absolute necessity before too long.

An intelligent president would put the unemployed to work and sink money in these industries. It would really help us through what's coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. YES, definitely!
but the old curmudgeons of big oil and the auto manufacturers who, even though they are failing/falling, still hold a lot of money/influence. They just won't let go or move forward into new business possibilities ~ they're holding on with their death grip and they will ultimately die in the end.

Just like buggy manufacturers couldn't move into the new concept of a motorized car....they weren't the innovators, even though they hung on for awhile - they just couldn't/wouldn't/didn't adapt. New thinkers, unjaded by old concepts, came to prominence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. do you realize what you are saying ?
If the buggy manufactureres didn't move into the polluting motor car we would not be here now . Not new thinkers , wrong thinkers . Ships used to use wind power to sail the seas and it worked and could have been improved upon .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. if there were as many horse-drawn buggies around as there are cars-
we'd have a whole host of other problems as well.

cheap oil has led us to lingering too long with the internal-combustion engine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Perhaps , but then you have to consider
How it would have slowed the progress of people spreading out all across the country with such ease , it would have restricted population growth and kept things at a slower pace .

Even with that disputed perhaps instead of jumping on the motor car as the next phase with such vigor we may have come up with something better than the internal combustion engine . We can certainly see now this was the wrong path to take .

Simply because it was an idea does not mean it was a good idea and then call it progress , it was without foresight .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. and most of us wouldn't even be here, either.
and for those that were, life would be more difficult on a daily basis- but at least it would be balanced out by a shorter life-span.

woulda coulda shoulda doesn't do a thing to help with the real problems we have to deal with, due to the road we decided as a society to head down, and the situation we find ourselves in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. No , the technology needed for alternative energy
Is not that complex , we had solar and wind technology many years ago and there is a reason we don't have it now .

I don't think burning anything will work out at all even if it's garbage .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Yeah, there's a reason we don't have it now alright
Big oil and auto manufacturers (i.e., producers of those gas guzzlers) worked in cohoots with each other to squash development of alternative energy! - it didn't suit their purposes/bottom line!

That's why. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

---

As an aside, and I'm just curious.... I'd bet you don't believe in global warming/climate change either, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. wrong !
I know why we don't have wind and solar power , I didn't feel it was necessary to explain that .

Didn't I say I don't feel burning anything is the answer , even garbage ?

So where on earth do you get the idea that I don't believe in global warming ?

Simply because I don't think the next tech boom will be alternative fuel does not imply I feel global warming does not exist .

I don't understand why people come off so judgmental and argumentative as you have .

Let me tell you something . We have been for many years using an internal combustion engine which is in no way efficient , even though the exhaust can be made cleaner with electronic controls the entire idea of using old tech re-vamped will never be the answer .

What are the answers , growing crops to convert , no ! You use what is free and endless , wind and the sun . Could have had this in the bag decades ago .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. You said, " I know why we don't have wind and solar power "
You didn't really explain why we don't take higher use of alternative energy:.

If you know why we don't take better/higher use of alternative energy than we do right now, please explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. yes that's what I said
I don't see how you decided I was un-aware of global warming .

We did have not long ago in los angeles electirc powered street cars that ran all over the area . GM can along and bought up aal these cars and even went as far as to pull up the rails and destroy these trolly's and then built the wonderful smoking buses that run these streets .

Gm also builds railway locomotives which run on fuel , have for decades and they build automobiles . They are a huge corporate power that are not about to stop now .

As you know we don't have wind or solar power for these reasons and many more but it's all based on oil .

If people are truely serious about haulting global warming it will take more than alternate fuels , we don't have time for this to take hold .

This means people will have to sacrifice their beloved cars and use mass transit when and where it is now and develope more to reach out further .

This is just part of the problem , it's not just cars it's most everything we power these days , all energy use .

I feel we have gone to far with the size of homes and personal pools and buildings all lite up 24/7 . The list is endless .

It is not just the corporations it is also the people who contribute to the entire problem . It will take more than just a talking point about alternative fuels and most so far are a waste in themselves .

Trouble is people wait until the clock runs out to react and then over react with the same old ideas re-vamped as a patch .

Now there is China adding cars to their life . There is the population out of control .

I don't have an answer because right now there is none . With the economy as bad as it is who can afford a new car and what will be done with the ones they have invested in now .

However people could affort a mass transit ride ticket and shed the expense on car insurance , oh my , another corporation who does not want to let go of all that money . Then there are the tire companies . The gas stations and all their pumps and hoses and nozzles .

Who decides and who lets go first ? Who forces whom ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. Because people are ANGRY.....REALLY ANGRY!!!!!!
And anyone who is into more 'compromise' than I've already bent-over and compromised already can just just eat more shit, vomit and die.

I don't understand why people come off so judgmental and argumentative as you have {/i]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. And who would know or care if you compromised ?
Better learn to compromise and sacrifice or you will never make it . Why let your anger get in the way of judgment ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. *I* would know.....my conscience would know
I'm gonna stick with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. well you can't project your conscience and expect people to
see it as personal or know where you are coming from without explaining it .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. the technology is there- but it still needs further development.
our goal as a society should be to be able to do away with burning anything to provide energy and/or heat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. No more ethanol please
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. I suppose I'm naive
But I've long thought that if we had a visionary president, willing to stand up publicly and challenge the American people, like Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon, to develop the technology to end our dependence on oil in a safe and renewable way, that we'd get there.

It seems it really hasn't been any sort of national priority.

Of course, I also think ending hunger and homelessness should be top of the challenge list as well.

Told you I'm naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. the iraq war is causing the nation to re-assess it's priorities...
and $5 gas will push it even further.

fortunately or unfortunately, the average american isn't confronted by hunger and homelessness all that often- the cost of energy affects them directly- and on a daily basis. so does the climate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. It SHOULD be -- but you'll see Big Oil and the automakers doing SABOTAGE
To keep it from happening. They've already done it in the past. See if you can find a copy of the film "Who Killed the Electric Car" and you'll see how they did it before.

The polluters aren't going to make it easy for anyone to get a solid foothold in their playground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. True that but this time around we have the knowledge of their actions in the not too long ago past
to take into consideration as we move forward. Lessons learned if you will. Yes it will be a strugle and I feel we're up to it too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
39. Do we really have the knowledge? Or more importantly -
Do our REPRESENTATIVES have the knowledge AND the prerequisite COURAGE to take on these mega-corporations? I don't share your optimism. In fact, I believe that we're already being played, and none of the people in Washington are up to the battle ahead. And I include BOTH of our Dem candidates for president in that lot.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. who killed the electric car is terrific-
the part about the guy in michigan who developed the battery is a great example of what's wrong...not him, but th way that the oil company bought up the rights/patent for it- corporations shouldn't be allowed/able to just sit on those kinds of technology if they're available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
44. Big oil is investing in alternative energy too
Big oil's agenda isn't destroying the environment. It is money. If there is money in alternative energy, they are going to invest in it. BP is one of the bigget solar manufacturers out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. Are you suggesting that the tech boom was planned by American politicians?
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 09:37 PM by Boojatta
If not, then why did you write that alternative energy "HAS to be an important part of the political discourse in this election season"?

Did American politicians decide that the Altair would be a good idea and get bureaucrats in Washington to design it, advertise it, manufacture it, and sell it?

Before you talk about a boom in alternative energy, why not point to what you think are the kinds of important emerging developments that come before a full-fledged boom? For example, is there an emerging market that includes at least hobbyists? Are there any particular research papers, working prototypes, patents, or small companies that you consider important?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
33. no, i wasn't.
i said that alternative energy "HAS to be an important part of the political discourse in this election season" because i believe that it does. i have absolutely no idea why you would interpret that to mean that i thought the tech boom was planned by american politicians... :shrug:

i don't claim to be all that well-versed in the various emerging technologies- although some good advances have been made in solar and wind- but more has to be done.
i also find the idea of using algae to create biodiesel to be promising, as a way to at least get us off our mideast oil addiction- although it doesn't do much to solve the problems with global warming...i'd rather see more development of electric cars like the EV1 that was tried out by general motors, as well as the battery technology that makes it possible.

as far as "emerging markets"- i'd see it as more of an "apollo project" under kennedy, or the wpa under fdr, something where some of the normal cycles are more compressed- the price of oil, peak oil, the falling dollar, the looming recession or worse, the looming tipping point re: global warming, are all factors that conspire to necessitate fast action in achieving the new technologies and refining existing ones as quickly as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Do you want new ideas fast or good ideas?
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 10:28 AM by Boojatta
as far as "emerging markets"- i'd see it as more of an "apollo project" under kennedy, or the wpa under fdr, something where some of the normal cycles are more compressed- the price of oil, peak oil, the falling dollar, the looming recession or worse, the looming tipping point re: global warming, are all factors that conspire to necessitate fast action in achieving the new technologies and refining existing ones as quickly as possible.

You made a comparison with the tech boom right in the title of the thread. The tech boom involved markets that were, initially, emerging. Was there really a lot of new technology developed by the Apollo Project and, if so, was there any extra cost imposed by the decision to develop it quickly? If there was an extra cost, was the extra cost worth it?

i also find the idea of using algae to create biodiesel to be promising, as a way to at least get us off our mideast oil addiction- although it doesn't do much to solve the problems with global warming

Using algae to create biodiesel involves what inputs? Usually, do you expect a complete cycle of producing and burning fuel to contribute to solving the problems of global warming? I don't understand why you would hope for algae to reduce the amount of carbon in the environment or why you would fear that it would increase the amount of carbon in the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. i'd like to see fast-track development/implementation of good ideas
and when i used 'tech boom' in the thread title, i also put in quotes- the 'tech boom' is generally considered, along with clinton's economic policies, to have been the driving force behind much of the economic prosperity of the 90's- and i look at 'alternative energy' to possibly be the next big driving force for future prosperity.
as far as the apollo project is concerned, the way most americans would recall it is that kennedy challenged the country by setting the goal of landing a man on the moon by decades end, and it was accomplished- in that respect i would like to see the next president "challenge" us by setting a goal of being independent of foreign oil within a decade- or even by 2015 or sooner.
as far as using algae to create bio-diesel fuel- no it may not help much as far as global climate change is concerned- but it would help as far as getting us off our reliance on mideast oil, which i personally see as a more immediate problem.

where corn produces 20-30 gallons of bio-fuel per acre, algae can produce 100,000 gallons per acre. and it can be done without taking arable land away from food production.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/02/01/soluti...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. Sorry, but your post is just plain wrong, and I would never, ever
intrude upon another's thread unless I was absolutely positive that your premise was dangerously inept.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #15
34. what do you perceive to be my premise, and in what ways is it "dangerously inept"?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
masmdu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes...100% Agree...I am already doing well with investments in that area...cpst, vlnc
both more than doubled since purchase.

New Tech/ Green tech is where to look for the opportunities. Just like google is doing, and Elon Musk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. thanks for the tip!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. I have to come down on the "no" side, unfortunately
The very biggest spur to the growth of alternative energy technology will be high oil prices, period. Right now, I think there's a huge premium built in for fear, and once we remove ourselves from the Middle East, a lot of that will dissipate. How much is uncertain, and that's where the problem lies. If you've got an alternative technology that can compete with $75 a barrel oil, you're ruined if the price goes back to $60. Stability in oil prices is what will sort out which alternative technologies can be made commercially viable, and which ones will not. That may take some time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. I think investing in alternative energy is the way to go
Check out this company-ASTI
They are developing a new solar cell that can be put on plastic and therefore anywhere.
Years ago they came up with the idea for solar paint- all of our houses could be covered with it=free energy.
If we put half the energy into developing these alternatives as we do to say making bombs, we would have taken care of the situation that got us into Iraq in the first place.

I have also been researching a company that is creating gas from a bacteria.
There are all kinds of alternative energies out there and I think it will be the only way we can save our economy by pursuing and exporting these new technologies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. ah, but if it's "free" than big bidness can't 'exploit' it now, can they?
historically, then just buy the patent for such technology than put it on some back, high, and dusty to be forgotten shelf....that's how they operate.

Gotta stick with the old, traditional "ways", ya know.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
36. Obvious to anyone who read the Harper's article 2 months ago that said the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
41. Not at all
The concept of a "boom" revolves around the concept of people making money. The Tech Boom of the 90's made many people rich, and that money was spent into the economy benefiting the nation as a whole. The Real Estate Boom, similarly, increased personal cash flows through either "flipping" or by simply increasing the equity lines available to homeowners. Again, this cash was spent, lifting the economy and standard of living as a whole.

Alternative energy products are important for the future of the country, but I don't see how they could fuel an economic boom. Most of the proposals regarding the proliferation of alternative energy products depend heavily on government subsidies. Since those subsidies rely on being funded through tax dollars, i.e., through the removal of a small section of the economy, they can never be sufficient to fuel a boom. Besides, if we were going to fuel a boom through taxation, rebate checks are far more efficient. Mathematically all such attempts are simply doomed to failure.

So no, I don't see it being the source of another boom. Some investment into the field would be a good thing, and it might be a nice career choice for some people in the near future, but I don't see it having any kind of large impact on the economy as a whole.

Especially since 95% of AE gizmo's, from solar cells to electric motors, are made in China and other low-wage countries anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. new sources of energy have always fueled economic boom times.
the same thing will happen when a feasible alternative to fossil fuels is better developed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorgatron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. i'd be happy if i could just get people to use the "solar-power clothes dryer"
which is just a fancy way of saying i strung a line from the tree to the porch :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Not true. Two requirements must be achieved for AE to accomplish that.
1) It must offer energy at costs substantially lower than that of existing fuel sources...without subsidy. This allows economic growth by freeing up cash previously utilized for energy overhead, permitting it to be spent elsewhere.

-OR-

2) It must offer energy at levels substantially higher than those provided by existing fuels. This permits the establishment of other industries which had previously been cost-inefficient because of their high energy needs.

Ideally it should accomplish both.

AE sources largely do neither. They simply replace one power system with another of roughly the same energy level. Even worse, they do so at a substantial initial cost which only allows modest savings to be achieved after decades of usage. It's a huge outlay with no overall economic gain.

Don't get me wrong, I support AE and think it's a necessary step for our nation and others to take, I simply don't think it's capable of fueling any economic booms. While a national conversion to solar power, geo power, or other sustainable would be good for those particular industries, the rise wouldn't be sufficient to offer any real support to other sectors. The definition of a boom, of course, is a rise within one economic sector sufficient to trickle benefits into other economic sectors. The potential for that doesn't exist with AE...at least not with the AE sources that are currently available to the market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. did you even read what i said?
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 11:25 PM by QuestionAll
"...when a feasible alternative to fossil fuels is better developed".

at some point there isn't going to be any more oil, and way before then it's going to get VERY expensive. much moreso than it is now. and alternatives will continue to be developed and become cheaper more efficient and more cost effective.

as for the economic good to the country/economy as a whole- as it's developed it will create jobs for engineers, installers, salespeople, factory workers, truckers, etc...and as those people earn and spend, it will create growth/jobs in other industries- retail, housing, etc.

that's the whole point of developing the technologies and the industry to the point that it CAN accomplish your points one and two, especially as the cost of fossil fuels goes up, and the availability goes down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. New sources of energy may always HAVE...but that is the PAST.
NOW, there is NO alternative energy source that is a sufficient replacement for what we get from fossil fuels. Think of the economy as an engine, and energy, from whatever source, as the fuel. Now, if alternative energy = some percentage less than 100% of the energy we currently get from fossil fuels, the inescapable conclusion is that economic contraction is inevitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
49. Not until the last drop of oil is wrung from the Earth, unless the Prez & Congress make laws...
...mandating the necessary changes in our energy production and delivery structure.

We have already developed most of the necessary technology and could readily invent the rest, but Big Oil and Big Auto and Big Fat Cats have blocked every road. Bush and Cheney have set us back about a century in everything that matters to the common person and the planet.

IF the next president is a Democrat, and IF we have a Democratic Congress, and IF circumstances give him/her room to breathe, and IF they take on Al Gore as a Cabinet member of the highest order, THEN we might see some bodacious action.

I am wounded and weary and I'm not holding my breath -- but in a very real sense I am praying for that. Everything depends on it.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC