Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $1.8k To Go Green!!
Please Help End The FReepathon
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/19/2011 2:34:29 PM PST by Steelfish
You and I agree here.
There is no way GE or anybody whould receive one dime of subsidy for anything they are developing that they expect to receive eventual profit from.
>> “I don’t think anybody in the 90’s thought that you could hold a computer as powerful as a Cray supercomputer, nut your smartphone is exactly that, even more so.” <<
.
That statement isn’t true.
You may not have thought so, but the rapid increase in computing power was an accepted principle since the early 80s.
That is the most telling single fact about the government's "green energy" policies. It incentivizes scams -- not improved technologies.
Moore’s law.
Computers would keep getting more powerful, but only a few insiders thought it could shrink so much. Bill Gates, for example, is quoted as saying that he didn’t think software would ever need more than 640 k to run.
Anybody can make wild predictions, it’s a matter of being correct.
I just read that Intel expects computers to eventually be powered by solar power, like your calculator. If we can get solar power to that point of efficiency, there’s no reason why it cannot also power your home lighting as well.
I know.
Between you and I, that is a non-debatable point. We should not be subsidizing technological advances.
If GE, or whomever, honestly believes that wind power, or whatever, is eventually viable, the R + D should be on their dime or it isn’t viable.
Isn't that what we're seeing now? So-called "green energy" subsidies and loans simply serving as a device to reward contributors?
As a consequence, the whole "green energy" market is predicated on an artificial foundation -- virtually insuring that there will be no technological advances in wind & solar power which might eventually make them an efficient competitor.
I agree.
The subsidy game has probably slowed technological advances by 20 years. What we’ll have in terms of advances for solar and wind 20 years from, we might have had by now, if the object had been to make money from technological advances, instead of making money through government subsidy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.