A list of novel technologies

[wacki]

Well Zeno wanted a thread like this.

I've created a list of novel technologies that I think display why I have such high hopes for technology:

http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/

I haven't added wind technology because well it's not easy to categorize in a simple list:
http://www.google.com/Top/Science/Te...enewable/Wind/

Feel free to comment on this. Either tell me about stuff I've missed or discuss as Zeno wishes whether or not this list gives us a bright or bleak future. The funny thing about this is that not a single item on this list was discovered without grant money.

Natedogg/borodog/anarchocapitalists, here's your chance, please step up!

[Zeno]

All the links are very interesting. Great post to interesting ideas and research. I did a quick look and liked the algae idea:



[ QUOTE ]
Berzin's idea is simple, once you accept algae's appetites and its astonishing efficiency. Laboratory research at GreenFuel had already demonstrated that single-cell algae could consume carbon dioxide or nitrogen oxides and then be "harvested" in a reusable form. This form, a biomass similar to an artist's soft charcoal, potentially could be burned like coal or liquefied into oil or used to make plastics, nutraceuticals or food.


Now, Berzin and GreenFuel are taking their system to the roof of MIT's cogeneration plant on Vassar Street. Their goal: to determine if the system can be scaled up so actual emissions from a live power plant can be transformed from greenhouse gases to, well, green resources.

[/ QUOTE ]


and the carbon sequestration in the ocean:

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most promising places to sequester carbon is in the oceans, which currently take up a third of the carbon emitted by human activity, roughly two billion metric tons each year. The amount of carbon that would double the load in the atmosphere would increase the concentration in the deep ocean by only two percent.


Two sequestration strategies are under intense study at the Department of Energy's Center for Research on Ocean Carbon Sequestration (DOCS), where Jim Bishop of Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division is codirector with Livermore Lab's Ken Caldeira. One is direct injection, which would pump liquefied carbon dioxide a thousand meters deep or deeper, either directly from shore stations or from tankers trailing long pipes at sea.

The other major approach to sequestration is to "prime the biological pump" by fertilizing the ocean. Near the surface, carbon is fixed by plant-like phytoplankton, which are eaten by sea animals; some eventually rains down as waste and dead organisms. Bacteria feed on this particulate organic carbon and produce CO2, which dissolves, while the rest of the detritus ends on the sea floor.



[/ QUOTE ]


I will add one quick link about Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Study.

What will be telling and most interesting is what form any opposition and/or criticism to the links will generate, or not. But I can already hear the 'technology produced the mess we are in how is technology going to get us out' cry. There will be many more screams, groans, and general sniveling.

I wish I had more time to spend on this but I have a weekend trip planned and it is more important for me to add to the greenhouse gases and see more of the country than to debate - At least for the next day or two.

-Zeno

[Exsubmariner]

I got a jolt out of this a while back, but all the seeds of crackpottery are present.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing about this is that not a single item on this list was discovered without grant money.

Natedogg/borodog/anarchocapitalists, here's your chance, please step up!

[/ QUOTE ]

Step up and once again explain the same simple concept to you? When you couldn't understand it the first dozen or more times?

OK, once more. That government monopolizes or subsidies X does not imply that the market could not or would not produce X in the absence of government intervention in the market.

Hey, I have a list of things that actually couldn't have been created without government funding. Why are you so selective in your examples?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Well Zeno wanted a thread like this.

I've created a list of novel technologies that I think display why I have such high hopes for technology:

http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/

I haven't added wind technology because well it's not easy to categorize in a simple list:
http://www.google.com/Top/Science/Te...enewable/Wind/

Feel free to comment on this. Either tell me about stuff I've missed or discuss as Zeno wishes whether or not this list gives us a bright or bleak future. The funny thing about this is that not a single item on this list was discovered without grant money.

Natedogg/borodog/anarchocapitalists, here's your chance, please step up!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate is a statist.

Also: what's the point of your post.

[whiskeytown]

I think wave technology has potential - aren't there islands and coastlines now powered by turbine generators working off the waves hitting them?

RB

[wacki]

Whiskeytown: Thanks for the headsup. I just added 2 more.

Nielsio: Nate has argued vehemently against public funding of energy research and has a hard on for pure capitalism. He has avoided answering questions of mine for many months if not years.

The point of this post should be pretty clear:

1) Make a list of novel energy technologies
2) Compare the effectiveness of pure capitalism vs. public funding in developing novel technologies
3) Discuss if technology can possibly solve the energy crisis and climate change

Which is all related to the topic that both borodog and Natedogg absolutely hate:

Just out today:
http://www.physorg.com/news69675439.html

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Whiskeytown: Thanks for the headsup. I just added 2 more.

Nielsio: Nate has argued vehemently against public funding of energy research and has a hard on for pure capitalism. He has avoided answering questions of mine for many months if not years.

The point of this post should be pretty clear:

1) Make a list of novel energy technologies
2) Compare the effectiveness of pure capitalism vs. public funding in developing novel technologies
3) Discuss if technology can possibly solve the energy crisis and climate change

Which is all related to the topic that both borodog and Natedogg absolutely hate:

Just out today:
http://www.physorg.com/news69675439.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your take on this wacki, but the ACers have an edge because there is no empirical evidence either that AC is destined to fail or cannot produce novel technologies (because there has never been a fundamentally AC economy) but there is empirical evidence that private enterprise can be succesful in developing some novel technologies.

Its like proving there is no god...yes, a huge amount of development has been government supported but you cant prove it wouldnt have occurred anyway.

[wacki]

Copernicus, I've gotta be honest. I really am not concerned with converting natedogg or borodog. Nothing short of God himself could convert those two. I'm simply making a website so those that are capable of actually learning something new can have a place to look up accurate information. The paper you see in the OP is only 1 in 20 I have on the way. When those are done I can leave the politics forum and never come back. Hopefully I will get other people with respectable credentials to contribute.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Copernicus, I gotta be honest. I really am not concerned with Natedog's or borodogs opinion. I'm simply making a website so those that aren't retarded can have a place to actually look up data. The paper you see in the OP is only 1 in 20 I have on the way. Hopefully I will get other people with respectable credentials to contribute.

[/ QUOTE ]

cool..should make great reading. Thanks for the effort.