boy does it sound like Kurtzweil has a grasp on all the nuance driving energy policy.
its like, all we've been waiting for is a clean, safe and resource abundant energy technology to replace coal and oil, which everyone wants to replace anyways.
Now now, don't become the perpetrator of gross over-generalization. I am sometimes wrong (rarely), but that doesn't mean the other vast majority of the times when I am right, it is automatically discredited. (Yes, I am making jokes.)
If an atheist wanted an modern day "prophet" who was actually right about many of his predictions (specific predictions), then they'd just have to look no further than Kurzweil. Sure, he's been wrong and about a lot of things, but he's also been right about a lot of things. These are not things that are "vague": these are specific predictions based on math.
Based on current trends, there's no foreseeable drop in solar energy progression. Sure, there's going to be something that dams it's progress and the Gartner Hype cycle says market saturation is around 30% for most technologies. Most sources on energy futures (not stocks, but plural for "future" meaning multiple "individual" futures for each technology, but not referring to multiple timelines, but the projection timelines for each individual energy technology: man, I wish I didn't have to explain myself) indicate that it will be a combination of technologies, not solar, not wind, not nuclear, etc. That puts the Gartner's Hype Cycle standard projection within a comfortable margin.
I would love an affordable solar technology to power every individual home. This would require redundancy and batteries. The redundancy could be realized through a fuel cell powered by the electrolysis of distilled/purified water. Sounds far fetched but it's possible within a few years. You just need a large energy giant to push it through, which won't happen. An energy company would be completely relegated to a hardware manufacturer, losing most of it's revenue.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 22nd, 2011 05:22 PM
