Republican National Convention (Sept. 1-4)

[Professor S]

Germ, I wouldn't use the Huffington Post as a reliable source. That would be like me citing Rush Limbaugh as a reliable source.

Also, your numbers reflect an "average tax bill". Do those numbers include the new Social Security liabilities? Do they include increases in pretty much every marginal tax rate? No, I almost guarantee they don;t. Obama's plan HIDES tax raises in careful language and in areas that are not considered "income taxes". Essentially raising the tax burden for most small business owners from about 35% to well over 50%.

Also, I find it hilarious that Obama's "tax breaks" for the poor, are really give aways disguised as tax credits.

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103...st_emailed_day

Also, your obvious hatred of the wealthy doesn't lend your argument much credibility. The fact is rich people pay our bills. Without them, no one would have a job, and one day I hope to become a rich person. "Contempt for wealth is a trick the rich play on the poor to ensure they never have it."

You claim trickle down economics doesn't work... except it DOES, and in places like Bermuda and recently saving Ireland's economy from its near collapse in the 80's and early 90's, and they are now a economic power in Europe, called the "Celtic Tiger". In theory, trickle down doesn't work. In reality? Its a different story. The exact opposite of socialism and communism.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/country.cfm?id=Ireland

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/i...d_economy.html

http://www.bermuda-online.org/economy.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Bermuda

[Professor S]

For the record, when it comes to energy I am a fan of the Pickens Plan in philosphy, which is building an energy bridge to the future. I'm not convinced over the viability of wind energy because of the real estate and logistics of such an endeavor being prohibitive, but I love the fact that the plan is multi-faceted involving both carbon and alternative sources. We need a comprehensive plan.

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

[KillerGremlin]

Wind...nuclear...solar; all viable, long-term solutions for electricity.

Electric cars? Ding ding ding!

One can only dream. The direction of car technology seems to be a green one, so we can only hope for the best.

[Professor S]

Well, wind and solar have a host of issues

Wind - The sheer number of wind urbines and the amount of high tension wire needed to make this viable. The technology we have now isn't going to cut it.

Solar - Photo-voltaic cells are a mess. They are only 40% efficient, expensive, big, heavy and worst of all... FRAGILE. The maintenance and replacement costs alone make it prohibitive.

Solar does have a future right now, but it isn't photo-voltaic... its steam. Redirect the rays into piped water and let the steam produce the energy. An excellent option for the southwest. Honestly, beyond nuclear most alternative fuels are regional at best (wind in the midwest, solar in the southwest, etc.)

I'm all for alternative energy, bu the hard fact is we are much further away than ten years from having carbon fuel replacements. Even if we had viable solutions now, there would still be millions of gas burning cars on the road and oil/natural gas burning heaters in America's homes. We need usable energy NOW and we need a plan that uses ALL the options at our disposal, and also give us options to move away from carbon over time in a way that won't cripple our nation.

1) Exploit out narutal resources, including oil, shale, natural gas, and regional wind and solar (where it makes sense).

2) Give tax breaks to companies that invest in alternative fuels and grants to companies to set up nuclear power (the start up costs of nuclear are astronomical).

3) As viable carbon alternatives for home and auto emerge, offer tax breaks to individuals who are early adopters and take the risk of switching.

Coming from a standpoint of complete ignorance, I imagine it will take 30 years to make these changes if each administration carried the torch, and thats a huge if, especially if oil prices plummet and cheap gas becomes attractive again.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm hoping that with some innovations regarding nanotechnology that we will see solar cells that become MUCH more efficient. I think solar power will be most useful in powering the electricity in your house. Solar panels on the roof? Seems logical enough to me.

I look forward to the transition to green...I hope I can witness it in my lifetime.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I'm hoping that with some innovations regarding nanotechnology that we will see solar cells that become MUCH more efficient. I think solar power will be most useful in powering the electricity in your house. Solar panels on the roof? Seems logical enough to me.

Except then there are high winds or a hailstorm, and you have replacement costs of thousands of dollars, and meanwhile you are without power. Also, most of the country doesn't get enough sun to make solar a viable replacement for carbon fuel. Same case goes for much of the world. Thats why I believe truly "green" energy alternatives are regional at best, unless there is a major breakthrough.

I look forward to the transition to green...I hope I can witness it in my lifetime.

So do I, but we also need to be realistic.

And Mana, I'm also very curious to hear more about these new cells. I have my doubts as to their efficiency, but at least they definitely will not be as fragile or as expensive. Its a great step forward. Do you have a link?

Found a linK

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0326131312.htm

10% efficiency. Its a good first step, but they have a LONG way to go.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And Mana, I'm also very curious to hear more about these new cells. I have my doubts as to their efficiency, but at least they definitely will not be as fragile or as expensive. Its a great step forward. Do you have a link?

Found a linK

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0326131312.htm

10% efficiency. Its a good first step, but they have a LONG way to go.

Looks like I got my solar cell advances mixed up. The "ink-jet" type I was referring to is actually the nanotube type that KG mentioned before me. The flexible type that I showed a picture of are different.

Found a link on the nanotube solar technology:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/ja..._panels_really

From that article, it seems there are three main types of solar cells, listed here in order of highest efficiency

1. Quantam Dot -- supposedly a theoretical limit of 60% efficiency
2. Silicon-based -- the traditional ones that everyone knows and loves, with a theoretical limit of 33% efficiency
3. Thin-film -- the flexible type in the photo above. The theoretical efficiency isn't mentioned, but right now they are lower than silicon-based cells at less than 15% vs. about 22% for silcon-based cells.

The interesting part about these Buckyball-nanotube concoctions is that supposedly they can be added to any of the three types of solar cells to improve their efficiency. So that means theoretically the efficiency of quantum dot cells could be even higher than 60%.