Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Latest Boss Info
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="68fastback" data-source="post: 6382999" data-attributes="member: 44957"><p>Thanks, RedCobra. I'm just a generalist, not a specialist. Everyone wants to listen to the specialists. Problem is, the specialists necessarily think narrowly, imo, and that tends to make real progress against broad problems difficult, if not impossible since each view the world thru the lens of their area(s) of expertise. </p><p></p><p>Certainly I do not have all (or even the critical mass of) the needed answers, and my generalist persective has gaps in it, but I think it's critically important that the big-picture is wrestled-down to a core consensus that can both guide the individual pieces/disciplines and permit their contributions to be evaluated in light of broad and fairly stable goals. And no one *owns* the big picture -- as in a unified national energy policy -- and that's abig problem, imo. </p><p></p><p>Congress has that responsibility by default, but therein may lie the quagmire, since I see no one working systematically to define the big picture. While ideally this should be an aim->shoot process, the varying maturity and uncertainties of some of the tech pieces may require an iterative shoot->aim->shoot approach, where the goals of the first 10 or 20 years may be different than the longer term goals. Admittedly easy to say but daunting to do define and do. But without such a plan it may be impossible (not just daunting).</p><p></p><p>Historically, the transcendant/major breakthrus have come from the <em>cross</em>-discipline application of technology by folks who were able to either break out of the constraints of a single discipline or teams that could successfully collaborate toward common goals -- and bring new and meaningful persectives to the challenges of the day (Einstein and Boeing's skunkworks being examples respectively). I think the generalists help focus the broad goals and thereby define the backdrop and opportunity for the evaluation of individual/emerging technologies <em>in the context of the big picture</em>. </p><p></p><p>Put another way, my solar friends largely spend their grey matter thinking in a solar perspective (how to advance the solar industry, how solar solves this or that, etc) but rarely focus on what solar can and [more importantly] <em>cannot</em> realistically achieve in the context of the big energy picture -- largely because there is no big goals-driven energy picture. Ditto for wind-power, hydro, fuels, H2, etc, etc. The old saw comes to mind: anything can get you there if you don't know exactly where you're going.</p><p></p><p>In my gut, I feel that we're missing the big picture -- which should have a level of investment and focus akin to the '60s space-program and the Manhattan Project until a cohesive 20-year plan can be developed -- likely the shortest horizon that will get the attention of long-term deep-pocket commercial investment. For example, refineries and nuclear plants have depreciation schedules on the order of 40-50 years. Pipelines on the order of 20-40 years. Big business is rightfully reluctant to make such huge new investments or put existing ones in jeopardy without some assurance that such investments will have a decent chance to reach maturity for their businesss/stockholders -- and they won't feel secure in such investments without a national energy plan (not just an energy policy) that provides a stable backdrop to evaluate whether any given investment is likely to achieve it's planned returns based on how it contributes to the whole. </p><p></p><p>Investors can often handle abreviated life-cycles -- it will just cost more and can be evaluated in that context -- but no real plan makes investment nearly impossible because it often must assume unacceptable risk. It's why, in the face of rising fuel prices, the US has still not built one new refinery in the past couple of decades -- the very uncertainty of oil makes such investments too risky. Ironically, not building for needed capacity helps assure those uncertainties become real -- and the cycle continues. That's bad for the companies, bad for the economy and bad for national security, whereas if the plan addressed (just for example) a ramping of x and y technologies to assume 20% of present oil consumption by 2032, then at least potential investment risks and returns can be realistically evaluated.</p><p></p><p>Solar and wind folks are incensed at the incentives the oil industry gets, but those incentives aren't 'gifts' -- they're risk-containment measures that permit certain key investments to be financially viable as oil capacity shrinks relative to energy demand -- to prevent abrupt capacity shortages from a lack of critical capacity/investment is in the best interest of national security, even tho it produces CO2 until alternatives start picking up the load. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are on a fairly steep growth curve and while they too can benefit from durable incentives, the lack of such is far less damaging to national security in the face of financial constraints. Still I think the solar & wind federal incentives that expire the end of this year should be extended because of their potential (not security), but that's another topic.</p><p></p><p>In such a scheme, plug-electrics might actually spike CO2 emissions (at the coal burning electric plants) unless off-peak charging can be used to fill-in overnight plant capacity -- since coal-fired turbines must suck fuel and spin at 60-hertz whether the load is 20% or 100%. If so, then daytime charging of plug electrics needs to be solar or wind-based -- especially during sumer A/C peak loads -- or not permitted, i.e. if you commute longer than your plug-electric can store in its batteries, it may be better for the country to drive home on gas rather than add to peak datime charging. I use that just as an example, but each tech needs to similarly be evaluated in the context of the big picture during it's relevant window of applicablilty. </p><p></p><p>Only then can we make intelligent trade-offs, imo, such that in the coming decades of somewhat turbulent transitions we make, on balance, the best decisions <em>*overall*</em> -- for our needs, for the country, for the planet -- and still retain our freedoms in the process. To my mind that has to be the goal of government. Admittedly a tall order but doable, imo, with a real national energy <em>plan.</em> </p><p></p><p>I'm talking too much and don't want to make it seem like I have all the answeres because I certainly don't ... just have a bad case of generalist big-picture frustration <lol> -- my bad! :rollseyes ;-)</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Red Cobra, I'm so hoping the '10MY BOSS is a GDI/VCT alloy modular (with power and mileage) and only hope I live long enough to see the Hurricane/Boss 'big-block' mature into a DOHC alloy 'killer' in some fun rear-drive FoMoCo curve-carver -- how about a BOSS 429?!! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />epper: ;-)</p><p></p><p>< notice how I deftfully got back on topic there at the end :-D ></p><p>:burnout:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="68fastback, post: 6382999, member: 44957"] Thanks, RedCobra. I'm just a generalist, not a specialist. Everyone wants to listen to the specialists. Problem is, the specialists necessarily think narrowly, imo, and that tends to make real progress against broad problems difficult, if not impossible since each view the world thru the lens of their area(s) of expertise. Certainly I do not have all (or even the critical mass of) the needed answers, and my generalist persective has gaps in it, but I think it's critically important that the big-picture is wrestled-down to a core consensus that can both guide the individual pieces/disciplines and permit their contributions to be evaluated in light of broad and fairly stable goals. And no one *owns* the big picture -- as in a unified national energy policy -- and that's abig problem, imo. Congress has that responsibility by default, but therein may lie the quagmire, since I see no one working systematically to define the big picture. While ideally this should be an aim->shoot process, the varying maturity and uncertainties of some of the tech pieces may require an iterative shoot->aim->shoot approach, where the goals of the first 10 or 20 years may be different than the longer term goals. Admittedly easy to say but daunting to do define and do. But without such a plan it may be impossible (not just daunting). Historically, the transcendant/major breakthrus have come from the [I]cross[/I]-discipline application of technology by folks who were able to either break out of the constraints of a single discipline or teams that could successfully collaborate toward common goals -- and bring new and meaningful persectives to the challenges of the day (Einstein and Boeing's skunkworks being examples respectively). I think the generalists help focus the broad goals and thereby define the backdrop and opportunity for the evaluation of individual/emerging technologies [I]in the context of the big picture[/I]. Put another way, my solar friends largely spend their grey matter thinking in a solar perspective (how to advance the solar industry, how solar solves this or that, etc) but rarely focus on what solar can and [more importantly] [I]cannot[/I] realistically achieve in the context of the big energy picture -- largely because there is no big goals-driven energy picture. Ditto for wind-power, hydro, fuels, H2, etc, etc. The old saw comes to mind: anything can get you there if you don't know exactly where you're going. In my gut, I feel that we're missing the big picture -- which should have a level of investment and focus akin to the '60s space-program and the Manhattan Project until a cohesive 20-year plan can be developed -- likely the shortest horizon that will get the attention of long-term deep-pocket commercial investment. For example, refineries and nuclear plants have depreciation schedules on the order of 40-50 years. Pipelines on the order of 20-40 years. Big business is rightfully reluctant to make such huge new investments or put existing ones in jeopardy without some assurance that such investments will have a decent chance to reach maturity for their businesss/stockholders -- and they won't feel secure in such investments without a national energy plan (not just an energy policy) that provides a stable backdrop to evaluate whether any given investment is likely to achieve it's planned returns based on how it contributes to the whole. Investors can often handle abreviated life-cycles -- it will just cost more and can be evaluated in that context -- but no real plan makes investment nearly impossible because it often must assume unacceptable risk. It's why, in the face of rising fuel prices, the US has still not built one new refinery in the past couple of decades -- the very uncertainty of oil makes such investments too risky. Ironically, not building for needed capacity helps assure those uncertainties become real -- and the cycle continues. That's bad for the companies, bad for the economy and bad for national security, whereas if the plan addressed (just for example) a ramping of x and y technologies to assume 20% of present oil consumption by 2032, then at least potential investment risks and returns can be realistically evaluated. Solar and wind folks are incensed at the incentives the oil industry gets, but those incentives aren't 'gifts' -- they're risk-containment measures that permit certain key investments to be financially viable as oil capacity shrinks relative to energy demand -- to prevent abrupt capacity shortages from a lack of critical capacity/investment is in the best interest of national security, even tho it produces CO2 until alternatives start picking up the load. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are on a fairly steep growth curve and while they too can benefit from durable incentives, the lack of such is far less damaging to national security in the face of financial constraints. Still I think the solar & wind federal incentives that expire the end of this year should be extended because of their potential (not security), but that's another topic. In such a scheme, plug-electrics might actually spike CO2 emissions (at the coal burning electric plants) unless off-peak charging can be used to fill-in overnight plant capacity -- since coal-fired turbines must suck fuel and spin at 60-hertz whether the load is 20% or 100%. If so, then daytime charging of plug electrics needs to be solar or wind-based -- especially during sumer A/C peak loads -- or not permitted, i.e. if you commute longer than your plug-electric can store in its batteries, it may be better for the country to drive home on gas rather than add to peak datime charging. I use that just as an example, but each tech needs to similarly be evaluated in the context of the big picture during it's relevant window of applicablilty. Only then can we make intelligent trade-offs, imo, such that in the coming decades of somewhat turbulent transitions we make, on balance, the best decisions [I]*overall*[/I] -- for our needs, for the country, for the planet -- and still retain our freedoms in the process. To my mind that has to be the goal of government. Admittedly a tall order but doable, imo, with a real national energy [I]plan.[/I] I'm talking too much and don't want to make it seem like I have all the answeres because I certainly don't ... just have a bad case of generalist big-picture frustration <lol> -- my bad! :rollseyes ;-) --- Red Cobra, I'm so hoping the '10MY BOSS is a GDI/VCT alloy modular (with power and mileage) and only hope I live long enough to see the Hurricane/Boss 'big-block' mature into a DOHC alloy 'killer' in some fun rear-drive FoMoCo curve-carver -- how about a BOSS 429?!! :pepper: ;-) < notice how I deftfully got back on topic there at the end :-D > :burnout: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Latest Boss Info
Top