Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacquelita
I think you all sorta missed the mark - the future won't be about which energy source we use. It will be about super efficient energy storage and distribution.
|
Hallelujah. Someone demonstrates a grasp of the actual problem. We have plenty of energy. More energy solves nothing. For the past decade, I kept posting variations of this expression. "Application to a changing load". And still don't understand why so many do not get it.
Burn ten gallons of gasoline in a car. Only a little more than one does anything productive? Over 8 gallons burned to do absolutely nothing. Why is that acceptable? Because so many want to solve the problem with alternative energy sources. So many would encourage the stifling of innovation by letting spin doctors avert the problem for political purposes or self serving profits.
This even applies to batteries. The bunny battery (Energizer, Duracell, etc) are a battery developed by Americans for WWII walkie-talkies. That little has been achieved in battery development. Most of that innovation has only achieved in the past generation.
Everyone remembers a GM electric car: EV1. Its designer wanted to use a new technology - the NiMHd battery. GM loves to screw the world to maximize profits. Business school graduates said GM did not make a NiMHd battery. So he had to use lead acid - an 1860 technology.
Hydrogen as a fuel benchmarks the so many brainwashed by business school liars. Hydrogen obviously solved nothing when George Jr (an MBA) advocated it in his State of the Union address. He demonstrates the problem. So many are brainwashed about alternative energy rather than address the problem. Only one plus gallons of gasoline moves a car that burns ten.
No viable replacement exists for petroleum. Nothing else has the energy concentration required. Damning reality to so many who forget to first define the problem. Solutions are found in application to a changing load. That (and not more energy) is the problem to be solved.
BTW, this month's edition of Scientific American describes fracking by defining the problem. And by defining spin that averts informed discussion.