[tw]

Your discussion targets the wrong problem. We don't have an energy problem. We have an energy using problem. Ten gallons of gasoline are burned so that one gallon only moves the car. We have plenty of gasoline. So much that companies such as GM will not innovate.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. It has possibilities as a battery - temporary storage medium. Other technologies are more promising.

Solar cells have a theoretical maximum efficiency of maybe 25%. I have since forgotten the exact number. At 1000 watts per square meter and 25% efficiency, where are the many kilowatts needed for today's low technology vehicles?

Why do the Martian Rovers only have maybe 60 or 100 watts for a few hours of movement? Because they have the best solar cells possible. That is very little energy defined by above numbers.

First, there is no alternative to the fossil fuel. To have the required energy concentration means nothing even theoretically possible exists. Solar to create hydrogen in massive tanks to then power a home that night is possible. And only if vampire consumers (cell phone charges, instant on TV, digital clocks, etc) are powered off most of the day. And powered only when major power consumers (ie refrigerator) need power.

Once hydrogen must be compressed for storage, then basic thermodynamics says all advantages are lost. A gas tank is so tiny. A hydrogen tank that also consumes the entire back seat and trunk would be necessary and may be insufficient to power a car.

Second, I keep noting where our future probably exists. Quantum physics. On 30 September, America shutdown Tevatron. America's only major basic research tool for our future. Another victim of Congressional cost cutting because we are now paying for Mission Accomplished. (Never forget the warnings last decade about what would be sacrificed due to that war.) Another example of a surrendering technology to others. A trend accelerated when wacko extremists had White House lawyers even rewrite science papers. Another trophy of this new American hate for science is the Constellation, Orion, Ares, and Man to Mars. "Science based in glory" that is only understood by too many who love war and other foolish concepts.

Third, solar cells cannot achieve efficiencies that are necessary to become a disruptive innovation. One promising alternative is the quantum dot. But again, that means doing basic and application research. Even the Bell Laboratories were sold the French due to a new America that makes decisions based in business school concepts. Basic research is only an expense on spread sheets. So who will innovate - develop the quantum dot?

American males are now attending college is decreasing numbers. So who will develop the quantum dot? Who will address the real problem - doing more with less energy?

Another potential solution that requires innovations found in quantum physics: superconductivity. Another part of a solution - doing more with less energy. Americans are now so brainwashed to, instead, spend money on glorious wars, obsolete technologies (ie V-8 engines), and money games (welfare for the rich). Those with the least education understand glory in war; not is quantum dots.

The Economist defined this fundamental problem on 1 Oct 2011.

It already looks likely that the successor to the LHC, a device called the International Linear Collider (ILC), will be built in Japan (if it is built at all). Most physicists agree it would be America’s for the asking if Americans wanted it, but the current Congress seems not to, because it would entail doling out half of the $20 billion the ILC is expected to cost.

Again, energy is not a problem to be solved. Massive energy consumption to accomplish so little is the problem. So little money and labor directed at what creates those solutions. Instead, the least educated even advocated a Man to Mars. Even solutions to global warming are about doing more with less energy. No wonder wacko extremists so hate science. Solutions are innovations that do same with less energy. Not in new energy sources. Solar cells will never achieve the efficiencies necessary. We should be investing/investigating what may even make the LED light bulb obsolete.

Learn lessons from history. CFL bulb could have been marketed by GE after 1975. GE would have owned the electric light business. Instead, Wal-Mart had to kick ass to get innovation implemented. All be it too late. China has most of the CFL jobs because GE sat on and refused to market that technology for over 30 years. That reality that says why so many Americans will even lose jobs is traceable to business school graduates whose solution is “More Energy!” – and the wars necessary to take that energy.

Clinton gave the American auto industry $100 million to develop hybrids in 1994. Another example of how to do more with less energy. Since wackos hate innovation and science, then George Jr said they need not market their existing hybrid technologies. GM did not develop a hybrid for another ten years after their original hybrid – the Precept. GM’s first hybrid was a decade after patriotic companies (ie Honda and Toyota) advanced what should have been an American innovation and product.

Doing more with less energy. Part of an incremental process of solving the real energy crisis - a shortage of innovation inspired by business school spread sheets, too many Americans who know rather than get educated, and attitudes advocated on Wall Street.

Please understand why this discussion misses a problem and strategic objective. Tactical accomplishments (ie more efficient solar cells) are wasted labor if the strategic objective is not defined. We do not have an energy shortage. A solution is not so much about alternative energy. A solution is found in massive energy consumption wasted for no purpose. But justified in spread sheet analysis.

According to spread sheets, profits are higher when quantum research is stifled. And when more energy is consumed (ie SUVs). When money is best spent in things only the least educated appreciate: "Drill Baby Drill", "Our Oil", war to eliminate mythical enemies, V-8 engines, massive defense budgets, frack as fast as possible, stifled battery technologies, wackos advocating hydrogen as a fuel, and outright contempt for science.

Why does your car consume a hundred horsepower when only 8 is needed to maintain 50 MPH? In a nation with increasing contempt for science, love of spread sheets, when the youngest males are now some of the least educated, and by not addressing the real problem, then making “more energy” remains a fool’s solution.