Why electric planes are inevitable

WDD said:
I see GPS as the same as "building a road". Building a road doesn't mean you get to take credit for the plant someone built next to it.

I've seen examples of government being prescriptive separate of economics and what people want - like CFL light bulbs. Expensive, people didn't like them, and they've been replaced / being replaced by LED's now. All because the old incandescents were "evil".
Click to expand...
Neither the government nor the private sector are perfect.
 
FastEddieB said:
Zippers?
Click to expand...

Not all zippers; but airtight zippers were developed for space suits. The technology made it's way into drysuit zippers used for cold-water diving. I'm grateful for that, though it hurts to have to pay $400 for a zipper replacement when the one on my drysuit wears out (every 8-10 years, it seems).
 
WDD said:
I see GPS as the same as "building a road". Building a road doesn't mean you get to take credit for the plant someone built next to it. The government didn't create GPS to be used as it is today. It was a military device. That the private sector took it and made something out of it doesn't put a "win" in the column for government controlled economy. Same for the internet.

I've seen examples of government being prescriptive separate of economics and what people want - like CFL light bulbs. Expensive, people didn't like them, and they've been replaced / being replaced by LED's now. All because the old incandescents were "evil".

THUS - because private sector can make use of something that came from a technology that government had involvement with doesn't mean government mandates and directed businesses will be successful.
Click to expand...
The road, GPS, and the internet are all "infrastructure" that allows those with money and imagination to build on them.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Solar- and wind-generated electricity is free. Yup. Sure.
Click to expand...

The marginal cost of energy produced by solar and wind is near zero. Almost all of the cost is in manufacture and installation.
 
Echo419 said:
The marginal cost of energy produced by solar and wind is near zero. Almost all of the cost is in manufacture and installation.
Click to expand...
And in sweeping the snow off acres of panels. And dust. And in replacing those smashed by hail. And in replacing the turbine blades as they fatigue and approach failure. And is the maintenance of both systems. They are not maintenance-free.

Numerous solar fields and turbine installations have been removed as money-losers. It means that the cost of electricity has to go up. It also means that solar and wind, which are horribly intermittent, need conventional sources that can quickly take up the slack as the sun goes down or the sky clouds up or the wind stops or gets too strong. Or we need massive battery installations for which there isn't enough lithium on the planet. And we need to dedicate vast areas to these things: in the west, that means cutting down a lot of forest for access roads to turbines and for the powerline rights-of-way; Those things must be up high on hilltops to catch the wind; solar also needs clearcutting, or the loss of other land areas. The environmentalists will oppose every step of all of this, at the same time they're demanding green energy. We see it is BC where the proposal of one new hydroelectric dam creates enormous opposition and expense.

All of this has been examined in great detail in reputable papers summarized on sites like https://wattsupwiththat.com/
 
Dan Thomas said:
And in sweeping the snow off acres of panels. And dust. And in replacing those smashed by hail. And in replacing the turbine blades as they fatigue and approach failure. And is the maintenance of both systems. They are not maintenance-free.

Numerous solar fields and turbine installations have been removed as money-losers. It means that the cost of electricity has to go up. It also means that solar and wind, which are horribly intermittent, need conventional sources that can quickly take up the slack as the sun goes down or the sky clouds up or the wind stops or gets too strong. Or we need massive battery installations for which there isn't enough lithium on the planet. And we need to dedicate vast areas to these things: in the west, that means cutting down a lot of forest for access roads to turbines and for the powerline rights-of-way; Those things must be up high on hilltops to catch the wind; solar also needs clearcutting, or the loss of other land areas. The environmentalists will oppose every step of all of this, at the same time they're demanding green energy. We see it is BC where the proposal of one new hydroelectric dam creates enormous opposition and expense.

All of this has been examined in great detail in reputable papers summarized on sites like https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Click to expand...

I agree that maintenance costs exist, but especially for solar it's more of a fixed cost and not related to whether the solar panel is producing energy or not.

And while there are projects that have failed, the vast majority have found profitability. Every industry has projects that fail or one reason or another. Wind is particularly mature reaching cost parity with gas and coal. There's still work to be done with solar. There's no one size fits all solution. Solar makes a lot of sense in the southwest, but less so in Minnesota. Intermittency is indeed a problem, but is an area of active research and effort. A world where 100% of energy coming from wind and solar will never exist, but I trust in human ingenuity to find a sustainable solution.
 
Echo419 said:
I agree that maintenance costs exist, but especially for solar it's more of a fixed cost and not related to whether the solar panel is producing energy or not.

And while there are projects that have failed, the vast majority have found profitability. Every industry has projects that fail or one reason or another. Wind is particularly mature reaching cost parity with gas and coal. There's still work to be done with solar. There's no one size fits all solution. Solar makes a lot of sense in the southwest, but less so in Minnesota. Intermittency is indeed a problem, but is an area of active research and effort. A world where 100% of energy coming from wind and solar will never exist, but I trust in human ingenuity to find a sustainable solution.
Click to expand...

Found profitability, mostly by selling carbon credits. Folks paying inflated rates for electricity cover those profits.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
The road, GPS, and the internet are all "infrastructure" that allows those with money and imagination to build on them.
Click to expand...
Is the claim that the government funded the infrastructure of the internet? Because that’s hogwash.
 
sarangan said:
Yes, wind powered aircraft! Think about all that wind when you are flying fast. The faster you fly, the more energy you make. Patent it, quick.
Click to expand...
But wait - put a second propeller on the plane, it will spin up as well. Double the propellers, you'll go twice as fast!

images



Reminds me of a very nice, environmentally focused co worker years ago. She said she wanted to buy a hybrid car (not electric, no recharging) because she wanted to use an alternative energy source for driving. And then I had another co worker who wanted to buy an electric car, because she didn't want to spend money with a Oil/Energy company, and wanted to be 100% pollution free.
 
Salty said:
Is the claim that the government funded the infrastructure of the internet? Because that’s hogwash.
Click to expand...
The initial portion of it, yes. The protocols that we continue to use now, yes. ARPANET was started back in 1966 by DARPA (you know- military? part of the government?). They developed the Transmission Control Protocol (the TCP portion of TCP/IP) in the early 1970's. TCP/IP was the standard in the early 1980's on ARPANET. The National Science Foundation (again, part of the US government) implemented CSNET for computer science departments and universities to connect to the nascent network. ARPANET was decommissioned after ~1990 as private industry took over. DARPA also did work on an early version of hypertext transfer protocol (the HTTP that you used to see in browser windows). The US government did do the initial funding, research and development, and testing of the internet as we know it now.

Likewise, many medicines are discovered because of government funding. The mRNA vaccine that is helping smart people avoid COVID infections received government grants:
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/...egion=us-east-1&originCreation=20210922173340 (see the acknowledgements).

Few companies fund basic research anymore- there are very few Bell labs in existence anymore. Google is one that does basic research. Basic R&D costs a lot of money with uncertain returns on that investment. The US government has been funding a lot of R&D, and setting the stage for private companies to make the discoveries into something useful.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
The initial portion of it, yes. The protocols that we continue to use now, yes. ARPANET was started back in 1966 by DARPA (you know- military? part of the government?). They developed the Transmission Control Protocol (the TCP portion of TCP/IP) in the early 1970's. TCP/IP was the standard in the early 1980's on ARPANET. The National Science Foundation (again, part of the US government) implemented CSNET for computer science departments and universities to connect to the nascent network. ARPANET was decommissioned after ~1990 as private industry took over. DARPA also did work on an early version of hypertext transfer protocol (the HTTP that you used to see in browser windows). The US government did do the initial funding, research and development, and testing of the internet as we know it now.

Likewise, many medicines are discovered because of government funding. The mRNA vaccine that is helping smart people avoid COVID infections received government grants:
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/...egion=us-east-1&originCreation=20210922173340 (see the acknowledgements).

Few companies fund basic research anymore- there are very few Bell labs in existence anymore. Google is one that does basic research. Basic R&D costs a lot of money with uncertain returns on that investment. The US government has been funding a lot of R&D, and setting the stage for private companies to make the discoveries into something useful.
Click to expand...
None of your first paragraph is infrastructure.
 
Palmpilot said:
No he didn't.
Click to expand...

LOL, from Snopes:

"
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”

In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning:"

Typical Snopes BS, created versus invented, lol, and people believe that crap snopes puts out.
 
Daleandee said:
Are you saying I can't believe my lying ears?

Click to expand...

PaulS said:
LOL, from Snopes:

"
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”

In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning:"

Typical Snopes BS, created versus invented, lol, and people believe that crap snopes puts out.
Click to expand...
Please do believe your ears! He did NOT say "invented." If you have to change his words to make your point, AND ignore the context, then you don't have a point to make.
 
Besides creating the internet, he also took sniper fire when visiting Yugoslavia. And he won the Medal of Honor. And he voted against the Iraq war before he voted for it. And you can can keep your doctor while paying less
 
invent
[inˈvent]
VERB
  1. create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
 
Palmpilot said:
Please do believe your ears! He did NOT say "invented." If you have to change his words to make your point, you don't have a point to make.
Click to expand...

Dude ... he is quoted in post # 59. He used the word "creating" as opposed to inventing. Is that what you are hanging on to? Are you in a river in Egypt?
 
Palmpilot said:
Please do believe your ears! He did NOT say "invented." If you have to change his words to make your point, AND ignore the context, then you don't have a point to make.
Click to expand...
“I took the initiative in creating the internet”

Al said he created the internet. He did not. You see “invented” as not the same as “created” and thus say that Al did not make that up / lie?
 
WDD said:
Besides creating the internet, he also took sniper fire when visiting Yugoslavia. And he won the Medal of Honor. And he voted against the Iraq war before he voted for it. And you can can keep your doctor while paying less
Click to expand...

You forgot that the movie "Love Story" was written about him as well..:)
 
PaulS said:
invent
[inˈvent]
VERB
  1. create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
Click to expand...

Definition of invent
transitive verb

1 : to produce (something, such as a useful device or process) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment
2 : to devise by thinking : fabricate
3 archaic : find, discover

Definition of create
(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1 : to bring into existence
//… God created the heaven and the earth. — Genesis 1:1 (King James Version)
2a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank
// She was created a lieutenant.
b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior
// Her arrival created a terrible fuss.
// create new jobs
3 : cause, occasion
// Famine creates high food prices.
4a : to produce through imaginative skill
// create a painting
b : design
// creates dresses
 
Daleandee said:
Dude ... he is quoted in post # 59. He used the word "creating" as opposed to inventing. Is that what you are hanging on to? Are you in a river in Egypt?
Click to expand...
Dude ... You're claiming that two words are synonymous regardless of context!
 
What he said was that he took the "initiative" in creating the internet meaning he voted for the bills that funded the creation of the internet. That's all he meant
 
WDD said:
“I took the initiative in creating the internet”

Al said he created the internet. He did not. You see “invented” as not the same as “created” and thus say that Al did not make that up / lie?
Click to expand...

I also pay attention to context.

You are ignoring the fact that "created" has meanings that "invented" does not, and you cut out part of the sentence to make your misinterpretation seem more plausible. The ACTUAL sentence was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Yet, somehow, you conclude that he could ONLY have meant that he "invented" it, instead of referring to his role in Congress's support of its creation.

Consider the fact that you're on the opposite side of this argument from Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, who actually WERE involved in inventing the Internet. THEY don't think he was claiming he invented it:

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening.
Click to expand...
 
Daleandee said:
Dude ... he is quoted in post # 59. He used the word "creating" as opposed to inventing. Is that what you are hanging on to? Are you in a river in Egypt?
Click to expand...

most definitely
 
Salty said:
None of your first paragraph is infrastructure.
Click to expand...
So, what point are you trying to make now? The communication protocols are a form on infrastructure, as far as I'm concerned. It allows data to be transmitted between different devices and different providers of data, in the same way a standard railroad gauge allows easier transportation across the country. Your comments don't change the fact that the government did the initial research, development, and initial construction of what is now the internet. however, if you don't like that use of "infrastructure", the government created NSFNET off of ARPA as I mentioned in an earlier post; restrictions to access NSFNET ended in 1991 allowing commercial access to the internet. This opening may be related to the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, authored by someone named Al Gore, but I don't know if that bill had anything to do with opening the internet to everyone. The internet went downhill from that date due to commercial activities, spam, and false information being posted.

However, the government does still provide subsidies for the internet:
https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/telecom-programs
 
Dan Thomas said:
And in sweeping the snow off acres of panels. And dust. And in replacing those smashed by hail. And in replacing the turbine blades as they fatigue and approach failure. And is the maintenance of both systems. They are not maintenance-free.

Numerous solar fields and turbine installations have been removed as money-losers. It means that the cost of electricity has to go up. It also means that solar and wind, which are horribly intermittent, need conventional sources that can quickly take up the slack as the sun goes down or the sky clouds up or the wind stops or gets too strong. Or we need massive battery installations for which there isn't enough lithium on the planet. And we need to dedicate vast areas to these things: in the west, that means cutting down a lot of forest for access roads to turbines and for the powerline rights-of-way; Those things must be up high on hilltops to catch the wind; solar also needs clearcutting, or the loss of other land areas. The environmentalists will oppose every step of all of this, at the same time they're demanding green energy. We see it is BC where the proposal of one new hydroelectric dam creates enormous opposition and expense.

All of this has been examined in great detail in reputable papers summarized on sites like https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Click to expand...
No, you don't need to cut down any forests. They must be almost gone by now, based on all the forest fires (I'm joking here, but I do wonder what happens to the burned areas- do they become prairie?). Who say you need to use lithium batteries? Your link is merely a aggregator, and doesn't list papers. It aggregates blogs, and has essays written by various people, but those aren't papers.
 
Lol, I'm not going down this worm hole, Al said invented/created the internet, same thing, he said so as is posted here, period.

Had he said " During my service in Congress I created, or supported legislation that led to the development of the internet" I would give him a pass, but he is a wordsmith, he knew exactly what he was saying, and said it clearly and succinctly. Snopes, try as it might, can't change that, neither can either one else.
 
Palmpilot said:
You would be well qualified as well!
Click to expand...

You are playing "word police" to try and salvage a wrong. By definition Al was wrong misspoke as only the Creator has the power to create! So we are correct in stating that Al must have "invented" the internet.

... and I thank him for it! :happydance:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top