New hope for solar energy

[audtatious]

Seems the MIT boys have had a nice breakthrough with solar panals to make them cheaper and more efficient

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/...by-50/

And the Gov didn't have to mandate it

[rn79870]

And this flies in the face of McCain's $300,000,000 prize for a good battery. Let industry develop that which will profit them, no need to waste taxpayer money on a "prize."

[smockers83]

Eh, the prize would be the same thing if it were handed out as a subsidy or research grant.

[rn79870]

Eh, the prize would be the same thing if it were handed out as a subsidy or research grant.

Tell McCain that, it's part of his plan. I'm not in support of it either.

[audtatious]

And this flies in the face of McCain's $300,000,000 prize for a good battery. Let industry develop that which will profit them, no need to waste taxpayer money on a "prize."

Industry did not develop these changes in solar panals. MIT did. Hell, let someone come out with a $1mil bounty to the first company that comes out with a viable alternative means of transportation that can be easily implemented and cheap enough for the public as a whole to afford.

[smockers83]

Bob, my point was that taxpayer money is going to go into this no matter what, no matter how its given out. We could give out $300 million to a few companies in research grants, we could use $300 million to subsidize any company looking to develop these things, which is what Obama wants to do IIRC.

[JerodKing]

And this flies in the face of McCain's $300,000,000 prize for a good battery. Let industry develop that which will profit them, no need to waste taxpayer money on a "prize."

I hate to say it but I can almost guarentee that this was funded at least in part by the government. Pretty much everything is, my old research when I was in the school was, and and at my current job many aspects are funded by the government, even in a private sector.

You would be amazed at how much the DOE spends on grants.

[skylndrftr]

Almost definitely funded with tax payer dollars...that would include the National Science Foundation if you looked at the webpage for MIT.

Just as a note though. Good technological development at the academic layer proceeds through rigorous academic peer review and publication. MIT has a long history of ignoring this process and publicizing things, only later to have them disappear into nothingness.

A similar thing happened a few weeks ago with a semiconductor process technology that MIT claimed as innovative and removing a technological hurdle. Made it onto Wired.com with that one, to bad at least one other school and 3 companies had demonstrated more advanced technology that surpassed the same hurdle about 18months ago.

It is a neat concept though...

[WDRacing]

And this flies in the face of McCain's $300,000,000 prize for a good battery. Let industry develop that which will profit them, no need to waste taxpayer money on a "prize."

Huh imagine that...yet another thread gone off topic to complain about McCain and the wasting of tax payer money

Why is it the Liberals will complain that the Gov did nothing to find alternative fueling resources with one hand and then attack them with the other when they actually spend money trying to fix the problem.

THAT is why we never resolve anything.

Spending money on energy IS NOT wasting it...it's what they are supposed to do.

Any chance we can talk about solar power and the great job the kids at MIT are doing? Or is this about how the Republicans are killing our tree's and murdering our children?

WD

[rn79870]

Huh imagine that...yet another thread gone off topic to complain about McCain and the wasting of tax payer money

WD

Well Brian, this is a "politics" forum, and the answer to these questions will require "political" intervention, at least where tax incentives or government money is used. And the issues are part of both candidates platforms. Don't you think that looking at what the future will hold is important?

And wasting of taxpayer money should be a concern to you as well as anyone else filing one of those dreaded returns in mid April every year.

So, I'll have to take exception to your "off topic" and "complaining" part of your post. Seriously, my friend, what would you like to discuss, how to Don Quixote might pose a danger to the windmills, or perhaps how to paint them to blend in with the environment?

[WDRacing]

Well Brian, this is a "politics" forum, and the answer to these questions will require "political" intervention, at least where tax incentives or government money is used. And the issues are part of both candidates platforms. Don't you think that looking at what the future will hold is important?

And wasting of taxpayer money should be a concern to you as well as anyone else filing one of those dreaded returns in mid April every year.

So, I'll have to take exception to your "off topic" and "complaining" part of your post. Seriously, my friend, what would you like to discuss, how to Don Quixote might pose a danger to the windmills, or perhaps how to paint them to blend in with the environment?

I'm quite familiar with what forum it is. The fact that you are forever putting a Liberal spin of every topic that comes up is what I'm referring to. If you feel that spending tax dollars on alternative energy sources is a waste of money then I'll debate with you. If you think the kids at MIT should stop this kind of research I'll debate that with you.

But the incessant Republican bashing and party politics following is just old Bob. I'm for debating man, but the upcoming election is being talked about in several other threads on the first friggin page. THAT is where your anti conservative propaganda belongs.

THIS thread is about energy...I'll discuss/debate anything about it...just please try to stop with the spinning. I would like to discuss the energy thing...if we keep talking about who will do what if elected it will simply turn into yet another thread about Obama vs McCain.

BTW, insulting me won't get you anywhere. I can see right through you Bob...

[rn79870]

I'm still confused Brian. You want to debate the current energy policy but don't want to look at where we might be in 6 months when the leadership of this country has change?

Like it or not, this is an election year. The biggest change that we'll face is new leadership in the Whitehouse. How is it again that examining the stance of a candidate on alternate energy is "spinning" the topic? Feel free to express McCain's plan and why you believe it is best for the country. I think these "energy" issues are interesting and necessary.

Finally, the OP did mention government mandates with respect to alternate energy, so your "stay on topic" argument isn't valid.

[audtatious]

I agree, this _is_ the politics forum and it's election time.

Now, I have no problem with giving cash rewards for viable solutions that are made unless that viable solution was 100% funded in the first place via tax money. Of course, having the potential of an additional 300k in "grant" or investment money back to schools/industry for a working solution that will save billions for the citizens of the US (and the world as well) is not that bad either. R&D is not cheap. If a person came up with some magical mixture of exotic fruits that cured cancer then I would have no issue throwing money at them for such a result. As long as it benefits us all then I'm OK.

[WDRacing]

I'm still confused Brian.

What you say speaks so loudly I can't hear you

[rn79870]

I agree, this _is_ the politics forum and it's election time.

Now, I have no problem with giving cash rewards for viable solutions that are made unless that viable solution was 100% funded in the first place via tax money. Of course, having the potential of an additional 300k in "grant" or investment money back to schools/industry for a working solution that will save billions for the citizens of the US (and the world as well) is not that bad either. R&D is not cheap. If a person came up with some magical mixture of exotic fruits that cured cancer then I would have no issue throwing money at them for such a result. As long as it benefits us all then I'm OK.

And that's what the free market economy would do. And that person deserves that money, every penny of it.

[rn79870]

What you say speaks so loudly I can't hear you

Funny, I've suspected that you only read the first 4 words of most of my posts, now I know.

[WDRacing]

Funny, I've suspected that

Caught me

[audtatious]

And that's what the free market economy would do. And that person deserves that money, every penny of it.

Yes it would. But sometimes invention comes from those outside of the .edu or business sector and knowing they they could get 300k from their work (assuming they are first) may be a good way to get them further motivated. Regardless of the reason I do not believe it is some huge amount that will swing innovation but it may help drive some additional incentive. Honestly, I would have no problem if they increased "the prize" in order to help jab additional interest as the end result would be a huge help to everyone.

[rn79870]

I could agree with some of that, but then, the inventor would have to put the invention in the public domain instead of patenting it and making a double killing off it.

[audtatious]

Then you just limited and made additional initiative worthless. Kinda like the cancer dude who should be paid well, the person or group who can create a new battery that helps make electric vehicles (or whatever) more efficient deserves to get paid well for the innovation.

[JerodKing]

I could agree with some of that, but then, the inventor would have to put the invention in the public domain instead of patenting it and making a double killing off it.

Wrong, I work for a company that has a grant from the DOE, and with this particular grant we get the patent, not public domain. It is a case by case basis and something lawyers fight out, not researchers, but so you know it does happen, I imagine realatively often.

[rn79870]

So the taxpayers support the research and development and when it comes time to implement the product the taxpayers again pay a premium to the inventor for the right to use the product they (the taxpayer) paid to develope? Does that really seem fair to you?

[audtatious]

Bob, I'll take "Not in all cases" for a thousand

[JerodKing]

So the taxpayers support the research and development and when it comes time to implement the product the taxpayers again pay a premium to the inventor for the right to use the product they (the taxpayer) paid to develope? Does that really seem fair to you?

Sure it does. If we didn't have the grant, several different things could happen. 1. We could not pursue the project at all, as it's too expensive/risky, and you don't get it. 2. We pursue it, but at a slower/cheaper pace, and it takes longer to come out. 3. We pursue it and it comes out, but is more expensive because we payed for the R&D, and we pass those "savings" on to the customer.

Now if we take the grant and don't get the patent, theres not much reason for us to do the project, since were not gonna make any money after researching for a couple years, when we could be doing something else. What business in their right mind would give up their time to do something for "free"?