Seems like electric is the end goal

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The plan appears to be somewhere between "go on without it" and "only the power company is allowed to use it"

And the average Joe is screwed...

[redpoint5]

Scott has me reprogrammed to push back a little on the idea of "end goal" as the focus. His argument is the focus needs to be on systems, not goals.

So, we start with the highest order objective, which I would describe roughly as "foster human flourishing on a short, medium, and long time horizon". Then we start to break out what some of that entails, like availability of affordable, abundant, reliable energy. This is fundamental to every aspect of human well-being.

Since we know fossil fuels become increasingly expensive to extract as the easier to reach stores are depleted, and because we want to pollute less and preserve resources for the future, that means we need systems that create competition in the development of alternatives. Note that we want competition, not coercion by corrupt know-nothing politicians who dictate what the specific solution will be. Electric cars are not "the goal". They may become part of the systems that work towards the objective of human flourishing, but they aren't an end unto themselves.

Some systems that might foster competition and exploration include laws and regulatory agencies that present minimum necessary constraints. There are risks, and people will die in pursuit of innovation, because the frontier is not safe. The notion that we can't proceed unless there is zero risk, or no impact on nature, is absurd.

We might consider "x-prizes" to encourage development of technology to solve certain problems. For projects that could reasonably be funded by public investment, this is an appropriate incentive system.

Finally, some projects just require public funds because there is no expectation of a reasonable return on investment, so private funding will never happen. An example of this might be fusion power research, or next gen fission reactors. The benefit to society for developing these things is immense, but the individual risk/reward motive makes it unappealing to private investors.

[freebeard]

So, we start with the highest order objective, which I would describe roughly as "foster human flourishing on a short, medium, and long time horizon".

Buckminster Fuller's definitioni of wealth: "Wealth is a person's ability to survive X number of days forward."*

Since we know fossil fuels become increasingly expensive to extract as the easier to reach stores are depleted,..

Else we could reduce consumption to match the replenishment from deep, hot abiotic sources.

Finally, some projects just require public funds because there is no expectation of a reasonable return on investment, so private funding will never happen.

I'm reminded of Eben Moglen's talk on Innovation Under Austerity. archive.org/details/EbenMoglensFreedomToConnectKeynoteInnovationUnderA usterity
...and the whole free and open source movement:

https://www.opensourceecology.org
Home | Open Source Ecology
We're developing open source industrial machines that can be made for a fraction of commercial costs, and sharing our designs online for free. The goal of Open Source Ecology is to create an open source economy - an efficient economy which increases innovation by open collaboration.

Machines
The Global Village Construction Set (GVCS) is a modular, DIY, low-cost, high

*When I search for the reference DDG wanted me to see hightimes.com/culture/high-times-greats-buckminster-fuller/, a Regan-era interview by Robert Anton Wilson. The intro is a good background summary, and the interview starts out great:

High Times: In Critical Path, you say that there are now four billion billionaires living on Earth. Would you explain that?

Fuller: [Sternly] You didn’t read the book, sir.

[freebeard]

Saturn may be crawling with cyanobacteria.

Groundbreaking New Way to Generate Energy Using a Bacterial Enzyme

It appears to be Hydrogen molecules (H2) in and free Hydrogen ions out. What that would do at scale is best left to the imagination.

[freebeard]

dailysceptic.org: Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power “Fails on Every Count”

They're not doing it right. HAWT on a hierarchical grid.

Wind power done right would be distributed small scale nodes on a hierarchy of grids.

Instead of one tower that powers 10,000 homes, 10,000 homes that are a vortex generator/capture device that one can live in.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Instead of one tower that powers 10,000 homes, 10,000 homes that are a vortex generator/capture device that one can live in.

Problem is, micro anything usually isn't good unless we're talking about electronics.

Economies of scale favor making ever larger turbines, because a small increase in radius exponentially increases the swept area...

That just triggered the hypothetical question of what diameter of wind turbine would power the world's electrical needs?

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Problem is, micro anything usually isn't good unless we're talking about electronics.

Economies of scale favor making ever larger turbines, because a small increase in radius exponentially increases the swept area...

That just triggered the hypothetical question of what diameter of wind turbine would power the world's electrical needs?

What if it could be "suspended" somehow so it sat in the 150 mph jet stream at 30,000 feet?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

What if it could be "suspended" somehow so it sat in the 150 mph jet stream at 30,000 feet?

How much extra energy is there? At 30k feet, air density is 1/3rd of sea level. Offshore is appealing because wind is not obstructed by anything, and it's at maximum density, and you don't have to figure out how to suspend something in the air.

[freebeard]

Problem is, micro anything usually isn't good unless we're talking about electronics.

What's the problem? Electricity should be used for comamnd and control. Thermal managment should be passive. Lighting and power tools aren't really significant, are they?

Economies of scale favor making ever larger turbines, because a small increase in radius exponentially increases the swept area...

Funny you should mention that.

1877 Maglev Wind Turbine

An Ugrinsky turbine that take power from the rim not the shaft, or a horizontal axis like that Ferris wheel in London. And a serpentine coil that uses tightly packed coils not the hand wound coils he's making, or even square conductors like the new hairpin motors.
________________

That just triggered the hypothetical question -- what if the solar infrastructure treated light as a wave instead of a particle? 4x the efficiency?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Since we know fossil fuels become increasingly expensive to extract as the easier to reach stores are depleted, and because we want to pollute less and preserve resources for the future, that means we need systems that create competition in the development of alternatives. Note that we want competition, not coercion by corrupt know-nothing politicians who dictate what the specific solution will be. Electric cars are not "the goal". They may become part of the systems that work towards the objective of human flourishing, but they aren't an end unto themselves.

Some systems that might foster competition and exploration include laws and regulatory agencies that present minimum necessary constraints. There are risks, and people will die in pursuit of innovation, because the frontier is not safe. The notion that we can't proceed unless there is zero risk, or no impact on nature, is absurd.

We might consider "x-prizes" to encourage development of technology to solve certain problems. For projects that could reasonably be funded by public investment, this is an appropriate incentive system.

Finally, some projects just require public funds because there is no expectation of a reasonable return on investment, so private funding will never happen. An example of this might be fusion power research, or next gen fission reactors. The benefit to society for developing these things is immense, but the individual risk/reward motive makes it unappealing to private investors.

That's a good point. Subsidizing real science, instead of funding pointless researches about identitarian BS or any other random stupidity which doesn't benefit anyone, would make sense. Then, based on real-world results which could be achievable while not pushing the average Joe into bankruptcy, the bureucrats could have reasonable benchmarking for regulations.