Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Solar Roads?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tulsanewb" data-source="post: 2523835" data-attributes="member: 2133"><p>I appreciate the background. I also worked through high-schooll/college (I began college my junior year of high school) so I certainly appreciate how difficult that is and what it takes to accomplish it. It sounds as if neither of us are from the industry directly, though have some tertiary exposure to it. As such we only have second hand knowledge to rely on and have to determine what information we read/hear we can trust. While what you posted does offer some new information, I did not see anything that seems to refute any of what I posted above. It also seems to be the lone iceberg in a rather warm sea of research, by which I mean using non-biased search terms I could not locate much research that agreed with their claims. Individual anecdotes from one electrical engineer I cannot put much weight in, again, not discrediting you or your friend; however, non-peer reviewed anecdotal statements don't carry weight in scientific research and are very much subject to personal bias. </p><p></p><p>As far as capitalism, I agree that given a level playing field the best will win out; however, I don't think anyone would make the argument O&G are competing from a level playing field. One only needs to look to Oklahoma, the energy companies can now charge a fee to a user if they use solar energy and are connected to the grid. It certainly is hard to be competitive when using solary means having to pay the other company to GIVE them power. They have subsidies despite the fact that their companies make more than almost any other industry (or in some cases, the most). Exxon mobile spent more lobbying in 2013 than the entire renewable energy sector combined. I don't believe large companies often go against their own interests and often work to fight competing interests rather than spend additional resources to "capitalize" on them. Exxon has the infrastructure to dominate the oil market currently; however, even if they went 100% for solar energy, they are late to the market and would never be able to have the same dominance and profit in the solar industry. It was not long ago (technology is and has always been my passion) that companies were saying that phones and tablets would never replace the computer. Now, all of the former kings of the computer industry are struggling to catch up to the phone makers in tablets and phones. Being extremely successful often seems to lead companies to get complacent and sit on their heals (or pay dividends) instead of investing in R&D. If we subscribed to the theory that because a company was extremely successful and wealthy, they would always know the next trends, we would still have AOL, Lehman Brothers, Circuit City, BlockBuster, RIM (BlackBerry, not gone, but close. They certainly could have afforded the top mobile designers), KMart (again, not gone... yet), and hundreds more ranging from niche to global products/markets. All of these companies theoretically should have been able to hire the best and brightest... Blockbuster had an opportunity to buy Netflix to start a streaming service in 2000, back when it was mail-only and losing money (a non-viable money pit would have probably been Blockbuster's thoughts). Blockbuster dismissed the idea... we all know how that ended. I would also argue that crowd funded projects are the epitome of capitalism; people believing in an idea so much they will donate their money to support it with no expectation of immediate return. </p><p></p><p>Additionally, in the Shell report they indicate a 37.7%, so even taking the information at face value (some more educated than I do not), it does not at all discount the possibility of Solar becoming the majority producer, in conjunction with other technologies. I trust that Shell has significant resources to spend as well, and do not have a clear agenda to predict the fall of the O&G industry. </p><p></p><p>Again, I am not saying this roadway is the answer, or that you are wrong and I am right. I will have no problems saying "well, that failed miserably" if it does fail. But I am not going to concede it won't work before even trying. I believe we gain tremendous knowledge even from failed R&D projects, and when they succeed, even better. How many fails did it take to get to the moon, or get the internet? I wasn't alive, but I am guessing 40 years ago the notion we'd all be communicating via PCs over a vast network would have been met with similar skepticism. Technology is advancing. Fast.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tulsanewb, post: 2523835, member: 2133"] I appreciate the background. I also worked through high-schooll/college (I began college my junior year of high school) so I certainly appreciate how difficult that is and what it takes to accomplish it. It sounds as if neither of us are from the industry directly, though have some tertiary exposure to it. As such we only have second hand knowledge to rely on and have to determine what information we read/hear we can trust. While what you posted does offer some new information, I did not see anything that seems to refute any of what I posted above. It also seems to be the lone iceberg in a rather warm sea of research, by which I mean using non-biased search terms I could not locate much research that agreed with their claims. Individual anecdotes from one electrical engineer I cannot put much weight in, again, not discrediting you or your friend; however, non-peer reviewed anecdotal statements don't carry weight in scientific research and are very much subject to personal bias. As far as capitalism, I agree that given a level playing field the best will win out; however, I don't think anyone would make the argument O&G are competing from a level playing field. One only needs to look to Oklahoma, the energy companies can now charge a fee to a user if they use solar energy and are connected to the grid. It certainly is hard to be competitive when using solary means having to pay the other company to GIVE them power. They have subsidies despite the fact that their companies make more than almost any other industry (or in some cases, the most). Exxon mobile spent more lobbying in 2013 than the entire renewable energy sector combined. I don't believe large companies often go against their own interests and often work to fight competing interests rather than spend additional resources to "capitalize" on them. Exxon has the infrastructure to dominate the oil market currently; however, even if they went 100% for solar energy, they are late to the market and would never be able to have the same dominance and profit in the solar industry. It was not long ago (technology is and has always been my passion) that companies were saying that phones and tablets would never replace the computer. Now, all of the former kings of the computer industry are struggling to catch up to the phone makers in tablets and phones. Being extremely successful often seems to lead companies to get complacent and sit on their heals (or pay dividends) instead of investing in R&D. If we subscribed to the theory that because a company was extremely successful and wealthy, they would always know the next trends, we would still have AOL, Lehman Brothers, Circuit City, BlockBuster, RIM (BlackBerry, not gone, but close. They certainly could have afforded the top mobile designers), KMart (again, not gone... yet), and hundreds more ranging from niche to global products/markets. All of these companies theoretically should have been able to hire the best and brightest... Blockbuster had an opportunity to buy Netflix to start a streaming service in 2000, back when it was mail-only and losing money (a non-viable money pit would have probably been Blockbuster's thoughts). Blockbuster dismissed the idea... we all know how that ended. I would also argue that crowd funded projects are the epitome of capitalism; people believing in an idea so much they will donate their money to support it with no expectation of immediate return. Additionally, in the Shell report they indicate a 37.7%, so even taking the information at face value (some more educated than I do not), it does not at all discount the possibility of Solar becoming the majority producer, in conjunction with other technologies. I trust that Shell has significant resources to spend as well, and do not have a clear agenda to predict the fall of the O&G industry. Again, I am not saying this roadway is the answer, or that you are wrong and I am right. I will have no problems saying "well, that failed miserably" if it does fail. But I am not going to concede it won't work before even trying. I believe we gain tremendous knowledge even from failed R&D projects, and when they succeed, even better. How many fails did it take to get to the moon, or get the internet? I wasn't alive, but I am guessing 40 years ago the notion we'd all be communicating via PCs over a vast network would have been met with similar skepticism. Technology is advancing. Fast. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Solar Roads?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom