This sounds great, hopefully they will be able to perfect the design and be able to get it produced on a nationwide scale, lowering our dependence on coal, oil, and gas. I'm glad that we found an efficient way of gathering and storing solar power.

Once again, science, not doomsday prophets and politicians makes a step (however small) towards solving our energy needs.

ah yes, fuel cells and solar energy.

 

 

 

unfortunately, oil companies will "lobby" the crooks in congress to keep these alternative methods of energy out of american homes for as long as possible.

 

 

 

If that happens in this case, I will seriousLy begin to doubt in the integrity and intellect of our governments. Only Bush (McCain) could be that incompetent.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38674/113/

 

 

 

Visual summary :D

 

 

 

Oh and Jack, another thing that Americans don't realize:

 

 

 

People for drilling frame the argument to make it seem like the oil that comes from the depths of the ocean will go directly to America. The irony is, the only way this would happen would be if they U.S. had a national oil company run by the government. So much for the free market! The oil will be traded in a worldwide market, making the prospect of lowered fuel prices specifically for America pretty darned laughable.

 

 

 

It won't belong to America. It will belong to Exxon and they will put it on the free market that the GOP loves so much. That is, until the market betrays them.

 

 

 

 

 

There was a ban on exporting oil from 1980 or so until 1995. They never renewed it. Even if it was exported it still creates American jobs and would lower prices globally. Thats one of two good ideas I've heard from the democrats in total. I'm not sure if it is already included in the American energy act. If Nancy Pelosi would at least let it come up for a vote they could introduce amendments to it and debate it instead of going on vacation without doing anything. The democrats were so adamantly against it that when they get back they are going to look pretty stupid now that there is the gang of 10 and Obama changing their minds. Of course now that Obama would support offshore drilling it's a genius idea.

Oh and Jack, another thing that Americans don't realize:

 

 

 

People for drilling frame the argument to make it seem like the oil that comes from the depths of the ocean will go directly to America. The irony is, the only way this would happen would be if they U.S. had a national oil company run by the government. So much for the free market! The oil will be traded in a worldwide market, making the prospect of lowered fuel prices specifically for America pretty darned laughable.

 

 

 

It won't belong to America. It will belong to Exxon and they will put it on the free market that the GOP loves so much. That is, until the market betrays them.

 

 

 

 

 

There was a ban on exporting oil from 1980 or so until 1995. They never renewed it. Even if it was exported it still creates American jobs and would lower prices globally. Thats one of two good ideas I've heard from the democrats in total. I'm not sure if it is already included in the American energy act. If Nancy Pelosi would at least let it come up for a vote they could introduce amendments to it and debate it instead of going on vacation without doing anything. The democrats were so adamantly against it that when they get back they are going to look pretty stupid now that there is the gang of 10 and Obama changing their minds. Of course now that Obama would support offshore drilling it's a genius idea.

 

 

 

Nope. I disagree with Obama, but I know why he is stating what he is stating. Everyone knows offshore drilling is a bad idea, except for people who believe the talking points of the Republicans. The Republicans know it's a bad idea, the Democrats know it's a bad idea. May I ask, why didn't the Republicans make this an imminent issue when they controlled Congress with Bush? I'll tell you why: so they can use it as a wedge issue, just as they use abortion. They know they can't do jack about abortion, and they wouldn't if they could; they like to talk about it just so they have voters.

 

 

 

He's taking the wind out of their sails. He's playing some serious chess here, and people are mad that he isn't making the right checkers moves. This isn't so much about drilling as it is about ridiculous Republican attacks. They know drilling is BS, and we know drilling is BS, and Obama knows that drilling is BS. So, what's the best way to diffuse the BS that is nonetheless popular with low info voters? Offer it to them. This is an instance of be careful what you wish for in the Republican camp.

 

 

 

Obama says, basically, "You guys think that drilling is a good way to help our energy problems? Fine, I'll give you that, I'll take my approach, and we'll see what works." Republicans really don't even want to drill so much as they want to play politics with the issue. So Obama one ups them, and says "Sure, I'll let it happen, if you meet these criteria (which are also popular, such as using already leased lands and low environmental impact)" Now they can't criticize him on drilling even though they had no intention of doing it either, and if they do decide to go ahead with this and continue to push it, it gives him the political leverage as President necessary to pass more comprehensive energy policy.

 

 

 

This is smart, it's good politics and good governing, and people are mad. They're perfectly willing to call Obama a flip flopper and a panderer on the strength of him saying "If its part of a comprehensive energy policy, and these certain stringent conditions are met, and leased lands are actually developed, then I'd be willing to consider some low impact offshore drilling if Republicans will support my energy bill" and people read it as "OMGZ OBAMA SUPPORTS OFFSHORE DRILLING!"

 

 

 

Obama is playing chicken with John McCain and the Republicans, and it's going to drive you mad \

They passed a bill opening up anwr in like 1998 but Clinton vetoed it. We'd be getting that oil right now. They did try to open up anwr to drilling back in 2001 or 2002 but the democrats blocked it. And back then it wasn't as big of an issue when gas was cheap.

 

 

 

And how is it a bad idea? Even democrats say they aren't against drilling just opening up new lands to drilling. Obama doesn't have a comprehensive energy policy. So far besides drilling all I've seen from him is "throw $150 billion dollars in the air and hopefully within 10 years we will have a new magic source of energy" Thats a far stretch from the American energy act which encompasses nuclear, oil, clean coal, oil shale, renewable energy, natural gas, and conservation.

Not a "breakthrough", I'd say. But nevertheless, good stuff.

 

 

 

Hmmm, perhaps. However, lowering the costs from almost $2,000 an ounce in raw material for the catalysts to a mere few dollars is pretty damned close to a breakthrough, in my opinion. Lol.

 

 

 

What was used before? Rhodium?

 

 

 

I think it's a huge breakthrough. Before, they were using platinum, to the best of my knowlege.

this is nothing new at all

this is nothing new at all

 

 

 

Yes, yes it is.

this is nothing new at all

 

 

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

 

 

not really, every day someone comes up with a new way to split water, that article is just hype

Saw this again in the newspaper this morning.

 

 

 

Is anyone else having a hard time believing that this will be the primary source of energy in the future? Lots of other things have come up, and just died.

this is nothing new at all

 

 

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

 

 

not really, every day someone comes up with a new way to split water, that article is just hype

 

 

 

At this cost, through another renewable energy? Hardly. This not only takes the concept of hydrogen, but it uses solar to advance that in an inexpensive way. The costs of catalyst have been reduced from $2,000 an ounce, to roughly $2.00 an ounce.

this is nothing new at all

 

 

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

 

 

not really, every day someone comes up with a new way to split water, that article is just hype

 

 

 

Talking about hype using hyperbole doesn't make for much of an argument. It is something new, a new catalyst. The idea is that it's much cheaper and allows effiecient use of excess solar energy to power the hydrolysis of water economically. It's the same old solar power but that's not the point.

 

 

 

Now tell me, what's hype about that?

this is nothing new at all

 

 

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

 

 

not really, every day someone comes up with a new way to split water, that article is just hype

 

 

 

Talking about hype using hyperbole doesn't make for much of an argument. It is something new, a new catalyst. The idea is that it's much cheaper and allows effiecient use of excess solar energy to power the hydrolysis of water economically. It's the same old solar power but that's not the point.

 

 

 

Now tell me, what's hype about that?

 

 

 

=D> Bravo.

this is nothing new at all

 

 

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

 

 

not really, every day someone comes up with a new way to split water, that article is just hype

 

 

 

Talking about hype using hyperbole doesn't make for much of an argument. It is something new, a new catalyst. The idea is that it's much cheaper and allows effiecient use of excess solar energy to power the hydrolysis of water economically. It's the same old solar power but that's not the point.

 

 

 

Now tell me, what's hype about that?

 

 

 

Every other day some group somewhere comes up with a slightly more efficient catalyst for water splitting / hydrogen production using different materials and architectures, and the increase, if any, is usually very small; note the efficiency for this new material is not quoted. The "hype" of the article is the talk of using solar cells to power the water splitting process for hydrogen production and storage for use in a fuel cell, which unless you are fresh out of high school or are just starting to get into renewable energy research / analysis is nothing new at all, in fact it's been around since the 1980s, even earlier. This kind of media hype on emerging renewable energy research can be found on any 6 o'clock news program, newspaper or news release.