Skip to main content

View Diary: Failure Of Green Energy Companies Doesn't Mean We Don't Need Green Energy (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fed Govt should focus on Pure Science at the.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radical simplicity

    ....university level.

    Best thing that could happen to green energy is for a battery breakthrough.  And a battery breakthrough is most likely in a university lab.

    The federal government does itself no favors redistributing income from the very poor to the very rich, as it does via its direct and indirect subsidies to a certain automobile company run by a wannabe messiah figure.  

    I still can't understand how Kossacks, purportedly concerned about income inequality, can support a transfer of income from a struggling working class family in East LA to Larry Ellison, so that he can knock off 10k dollars (7.5k federal +2.5 state) off the price of a 100k sports
    car.

    Pure Science?  The government should quadruple support.

    Sports cars that require a transfer of income from the poor to the wealthy?  Should not happen.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 09:08:48 AM PDT

    •  I agree about pure research (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PatriciaVa, nzanne

      ... but we also need some investment on the other side.

      A huge percentage of the problem with getting new tech to market is the "adoption gap" - that space between evangelists & early adopters (who combined, comprise about 5% of most markets), and the entire rest of the public. The first two groups will adopt a new tech because it's cool, or exciting, or whatever. They're willing to take the risk of failing because they can afford it, or because they strongly believe it won't fail.

      Everyone else is waiting to see the tech in action before taking a risk. Until a critical mass of the "interested fence-sitters" see something in action, they aren't willing to try it. Thus, we need demonstration vehicles out there.

      Yes, they're expensive, but part of that is the problem of economies of scale - when you don't have an existing, proven market, you would be insane to try produce at a scale that will bring the per-part price down, thus the price is high.  Hybrids were ridiculously expensive when they first hit the market, even though most of the car is the same as a conventional car.  Now, they're in the same price neighborhood as other cars targeted toward the middle class.

      With oil company propagandists working full time to generate as much inertia as possible among those on the "far" side of the EV adoption gap, it's more important to help bring demo models to market.

      We do need new battery tech, and people are working feverishly toward that end. I agree we should dump a TON of money into it - as a hybrid owner with a 10 year old battery pack on its last legs after 250k miles, I'd LOVE a new battery that will last even longer, charge even faster, and provide even more of the energy needed to move my car. I drool over the Nissan LEAF, but until the battery tech takes the next leap, it's not an appropriate car for winter mountain driving (the long, steep climbs would drain the battery pack to the point where it would be damaged).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (55)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Economy (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Media (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site