Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This weekend I tried a little mental exercise. I was thinking about how we could break our dependence upon oil. Rather than ponder too deeply, (and probably hurt myself), I figured I'd try the creative writing methond...that being to write down the first idea that popped into my head. After having a thought about what the exact problem is with our oil usage, I split it into two components: Power Generation and Transportation. I came up with an idea that kills two birds with one stone AND allowes the free market to come up with a solution. The idea was this: Why not hold a contest? Yes, that's right, a contest. A contest with an immensely valuable prize: 100-year EXCLUSIVE patent rights and 50 years corporate tax-free production time for the first company to develop fusion power and/or a transportation system that relies on oil for less than 10% of its propulsion. In addition to this, the gubmint would guarantee the purchase of a certain number of fusion reactors/oil-free cars to make any and all research profitable BEFORE the company (ies) would have to get it to market. Would an idea such as this work? What would the barriers be? Would a 10-year time limit be long enough? I don't know enough about mechanical engineering or nuclear physics to say, but I'd say the idea is sound and a responsible way to improve the amount spent on R&D to fix a bad problem. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This weekend I tried a little mental exercise. I was thinking about how we could break our dependence upon oil. Rather than ponder too deeply, (and probably hurt myself), I figured I'd try the creative writing methond...that being to write down the first idea that popped into my head. After having a thought about what the exact problem is with our oil usage, I split it into two components: Power Generation and Transportation. I came up with an idea that kills two birds with one stone AND allowes the free market to come up with a solution. The idea was this: Why not hold a contest? Yes, that's right, a contest. A contest with an immensely valuable prize: 100-year EXCLUSIVE patent rights and 50 years corporate tax-free production time for the first company to develop fusion power and/or a transportation system that relies on oil for less than 10% of its propulsion. In addition to this, the gubmint would guarantee the purchase of a certain number of fusion reactors/oil-free cars to make any and all research profitable BEFORE the company (ies) would have to get it to market. Would an idea such as this work? What would the barriers be? Would a 10-year time limit be long enough? I don't know enough about mechanical engineering or nuclear physics to say, but I'd say the idea is sound and a responsible way to improve the amount spent on R&D to fix a bad problem. Thoughts? 643565[/snapback] The problem with this is that the government would be involved. That is a sure way to fvck things up. It needs to be driven by the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 The problem with this is that the government would be involved. That is a sure way to fvck things up. 643572[/snapback] Now hold on one second: This paradigm works for the military, and pretty well, too. For a good example, take a look at the JSF project. The best technology for the lowest cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This paradigm works for the military, and pretty well, too. For a good example, take a look at the JSF project. The best technology for the lowest cost. 643574[/snapback] JSF... ...whew...that was a good one. JSF is a very good example of how totally !@#$ed up the system is. It should serve as an example of how NOT to do things. And it sure as hell isn't any sort of example of "best technology, lowest cost"...quite the contrary, it's dumbed-down F/A-22 tech, and costs are shooting through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This weekend I tried a little mental exercise. I was thinking about how we could break our dependence upon oil. Rather than ponder too deeply, (and probably hurt myself), I figured I'd try the creative writing methond...that being to write down the first idea that popped into my head. After having a thought about what the exact problem is with our oil usage, I split it into two components: Power Generation and Transportation. I came up with an idea that kills two birds with one stone AND allowes the free market to come up with a solution. The idea was this: Why not hold a contest? Yes, that's right, a contest. A contest with an immensely valuable prize: 100-year EXCLUSIVE patent rights and 50 years corporate tax-free production time for the first company to develop fusion power and/or a transportation system that relies on oil for less than 10% of its propulsion. In addition to this, the gubmint would guarantee the purchase of a certain number of fusion reactors/oil-free cars to make any and all research profitable BEFORE the company (ies) would have to get it to market. Would an idea such as this work? What would the barriers be? Would a 10-year time limit be long enough? I don't know enough about mechanical engineering or nuclear physics to say, but I'd say the idea is sound and a responsible way to improve the amount spent on R&D to fix a bad problem. Thoughts? 643565[/snapback] I will sell my reactors to the government at a cost of $100 trillion each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This weekend I tried a little mental exercise. I was thinking about how we could break our dependence upon oil. Rather than ponder too deeply, (and probably hurt myself), I figured I'd try the creative writing methond...that being to write down the first idea that popped into my head. After having a thought about what the exact problem is with our oil usage, I split it into two components: Power Generation and Transportation. I came up with an idea that kills two birds with one stone AND allowes the free market to come up with a solution. The idea was this: Why not hold a contest? Yes, that's right, a contest. A contest with an immensely valuable prize: 100-year EXCLUSIVE patent rights and 50 years corporate tax-free production time for the first company to develop fusion power and/or a transportation system that relies on oil for less than 10% of its propulsion. In addition to this, the gubmint would guarantee the purchase of a certain number of fusion reactors/oil-free cars to make any and all research profitable BEFORE the company (ies) would have to get it to market. Would an idea such as this work? What would the barriers be? Would a 10-year time limit be long enough? I don't know enough about mechanical engineering or nuclear physics to say, but I'd say the idea is sound and a responsible way to improve the amount spent on R&D to fix a bad problem. Thoughts? 643565[/snapback] I think you're nuts. Specifically, I think the basic idea is sound, if excessive (20 years after you award the monopoly, people will B word about the monopoly and congress will overturn it. So make it 20-year rights.) But I think you're right: you don't know enough about mechanical engineering or nuclear physics to say. Specifically, I don't think you realize that you're talking about setting policy, not about the physics or engineering of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This weekend I tried a little mental exercise. I was thinking about how we could break our dependence upon oil. Rather than ponder too deeply, (and probably hurt myself), I figured I'd try the creative writing methond...that being to write down the first idea that popped into my head. After having a thought about what the exact problem is with our oil usage, I split it into two components: Power Generation and Transportation. I came up with an idea that kills two birds with one stone AND allowes the free market to come up with a solution. The idea was this: Why not hold a contest? Yes, that's right, a contest. A contest with an immensely valuable prize: 100-year EXCLUSIVE patent rights and 50 years corporate tax-free production time for the first company to develop fusion power and/or a transportation system that relies on oil for less than 10% of its propulsion. In addition to this, the gubmint would guarantee the purchase of a certain number of fusion reactors/oil-free cars to make any and all research profitable BEFORE the company (ies) would have to get it to market. Would an idea such as this work? What would the barriers be? Would a 10-year time limit be long enough? I don't know enough about mechanical engineering or nuclear physics to say, but I'd say the idea is sound and a responsible way to improve the amount spent on R&D to fix a bad problem. Thoughts? 643565[/snapback] Dibs on illegal imigrant powered rickshaws! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Dibs on illegal imigrant powered rickshaws! 643651[/snapback] The "only sort of" illegal ones, or the "really, really" illegal ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 I think you're nuts. Specifically, I think the basic idea is sound, if excessive (20 years after you award the monopoly, people will B word about the monopoly and congress will overturn it. So make it 20-year rights.) But I think you're right: you don't know enough about mechanical engineering or nuclear physics to say. Specifically, I don't think you realize that you're talking about setting policy, not about the physics or engineering of the problem. 643623[/snapback] Well, duh. That's why I put the questions in my post. I was hoping one of the big brains around here would be able to answer. And as far as the JSF goes, the thing *IS* a remarkable piece of equipment. Espeacially the Marines' version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 The "only sort of" illegal ones, or the "really, really" illegal ones? 643660[/snapback] Sorry, I meant undocumented guests, not illegal immigrants. How racist and insensitive of me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 And as far as the JSF goes, the thing *IS* a remarkable piece of equipment. Espeacially the Marines' version. 643662[/snapback] Perhaps. Technically, I thought Boeing's entry was more impressive...but less suitable as a combat plane. And it's also a great example of the typical sh------- way the government runs things. A design built around a fundamentally conflicting set of requirements, in a program so damned big that everyone in the government has a stake in it. JSF is the epitome of the federal diarhhetic elephant: massive, hard to move, impressive in its own way, and good for little more than generating incredible amounts of sh--. And of the major DoD acquisition programs right now, that's my favorite. Don't even get me started on FCS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Sorry, I meant undocumented guests, not illegal immigrants. How racist and insensitive of me! 643682[/snapback] Now yere learnin, maybe we should allow you and your kind to stay in the US of A(sarcasm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 The gov't doesnt do ANYTHING efficiently. The JSF might be a giant a$$ kicking machine...but it aint cheap, and Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics and others make a killing off the governments inefficiency. In addition, the majority of the military uses old technology. This is by choice. They are afraid of anything modern. They want what they know works. Tried and True technology. The navy is about 20 years behind modern technology because it still works and is still 100 times better than anything anyone else has. Now they pay a fortune to maintain these old aging ships, but thats another story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts