Originally posted by ShadowXIX
So tax cuts wouldnt help make something more commercially viable?? So let me get this straight, making something cost less does not help its commercial viablity?? Im not quite following you there.
Way to be semantical buddy. We are talking about pond scum not something. To be a large company and say 'OK, let's ditch hundreds of millions of dollars a year into an nonresearched energy based source, which has so far no insentive other than being 'green', and hope that people buy our product despite the fact we have no idea if it will be cheap, expensive, or limited to the bourgoise', is taking a huge leap of faith into an unknown area. This is despite the fact what stock holders and investors have to say.
Where are the reports and projects that define the minimum and maximum expected cost of major operations?
And simply, spending billions of government dollars does not garuntee a thing. Nor do tax breaks. Nothing is garunteed. The government is not a magic godfairry.
I never asked or said tax cuts would make it a profit maker just it could help thus making people not have to increase its production rate as high to be profitable.
The insentive is to make it profitable. Private companies cannot run deficts like the federal governments.
What does weather conditions have to do this technology? These would have to be grown in inclosed structures like greenhouses to harvest the Hydrogen. They would be put out in useless desert land or some other sunny place since the only thing the really require besides water is lots of sunlight. The desert has that in spades and water can be pumped anywhere you want it. Its not like algae is hard to grow either weather is really a non issue.
Weather plays a huge role in energy production. Why do people need energy in the first place? Here is one: to heat their homes. Why are oil and other energy resource prices so high sometimes and why do they spike higher at other times? Here is one: hurricanes, torandoes, ice storms, sand storms, etc.
And because 'water can be pumped everywhere' does not mean water can be pumped everywhere at a minimal cost. A desert? What desert? What happens if you need an area the size of Rhode Island to run an operation jsut to produce enough fuel to provide energy to 1/10 of the nation? What in the hell are the taxes going to be on that place? How much will it cost?
When demand is increased you grow more algae just as any grown product, when soy demand increases you grow more soy when theres a higher demand for apples people grow more apples. People have been doing that with crops since the begining of recorded history.
Yes, but you grow pond scum in a pond, and as you say 'in a closed structure'. Farmers grow crops in top soil, not crops in greenhouses. How fast does this scum reproduce?
The idea just sounds silly, and everyone knows why these ideas aren't being built upon: You haven't convinced anybody. Make a convincing argument, and maybe someone will fund your research just to estimate the cost of a major operation. Even then, one report probably will not suffice.
Many of these ideas just sound like magic, pure and simple.
[edit on 21-3-2006 by Frosty]
