Comments on: Self Cleaning Oven Sparks a Solar Power Breakthrough

By: Tina Casey

Tina Casey — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:11:31 +0000

Thank you, Geoff. You broadened out my point to include other types of barriers to new tech, and come to think of it my posts often include caveats about the difficulty of rendering new research into commercially successful products and processes, let alone any political impediments. For readers who are a bit put off by the politics, it might help to keep in mind that the idea is to recognize and overcome (when possible) barriers of all kinds, and get new sustainable technologies out of the lab and into peoples’ hands.

By: Geoff Henderson

Geoff Henderson — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 05:49:33 +0000

Yes I agree that the substance of an article is all important. But it should follow with some insight as to where the technology (or whatever) might then go. Within that comment on barriers would fit pretty readily I would think. Barriers can be fiscal, practical or political, and may exist as action or non-action. But surely it is appropriate to indicate their presence. If not, how would you know if the world was going to hell in a hand basket?
BTW, is Newt Gingrich an American? Who knew?

By: Tina Casey

Tina Casey — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:36:04 +0000

Doug, thank you. You raise a really important point, which is the value of getting more information out to more people. However, some kind of political context is called for now and then; otherwise, you might be reaching more people, but they might not be making the connection between emerging green tech and the kind of policy-making and legislative frameworks that are needed to push that technology into the real world. It would be a disservice to write about sustainable energy without at least sometimes acknowledging the political actions and policy statements of those who do not support progress in this sector.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:03:16 +0000

I really prefer the political talk to be minimized/removed from the articles.
If the article is about science, hope, and statistics, then I can send it to people of all political persuasions.

If the article is laced with political attacks, I can only send it to those people I am certain will not be offended.

Remove the politics and the message will be spread farther.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:58:55 +0000

It is certainly not a great primary energy source. However, it could be a significant by-product energy source. It would be similar to the waste-heat energy generators.

The more power we can squeeze out of our existing systems, the less CO2/unit of energy created.

By: Tina Casey

Tina Casey — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:13:08 +0000

Frank, I can understand your frustration. The amount of hard information that I can fit into any particular post is limited because I write short pieces for a general audience, so I try to summarize technical details in a way that provides the reader with a basic understanding of new technologies and how they fit into the big picture. As I see it, the big picture includes the entire civic landscape, which includes Federal legislation and funding for new technological development as a critical component, and that in turn is directly dependent on political currents. I don’t cover that ground in every post, or even in most of my posts, but if something in the day-to-day news catches my eye I try to include it in a timely and relevant way. That is why I discussed the quote from Newt Gingrich in this particular post, along with a similar quote from Sarah Palin.

By: Frank Hanlan

Frank Hanlan — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:13:53 +0000

I agree with Chris Petersen to the extent that I believe that I am not getting enough hard information compared to the noise. If Clean Technica wants to point out how and why it is important I am happy to read but continued bashing & putting down will quickly mean that I quit reading the newsletter. I experienced more than enough bullying when I was growing up.

By: Tina Casey

Tina Casey — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:24:16 +0000

Chris: I understand your weariness with the political discourse but I can’t agree that CleanTechnica’s readers are better served by your approach. Here is a link to someone who can offer a more full explanation of why it’s a mistake to ignore “the noise” — http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01/the_deal_with_palin.php#more?ref=fpblg. The money quote: “This is actually a real blind spot for liberals in general — the idea that things that are crazy or tawdry or just outrageous are really best ignored.”

By: chris petersen

chris petersen — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:14:43 +0000

I’ve noticed an increasing trend in Cleantechnica articles to include 1/4 technical substance and the rest political rant. Please refrain from the bashing. We get enough of it from the right (or wrong) news media already. Stick to the facts on the subject matter and the noise will go away on its own. Thanks!

By: Bob Wallace

Bob Wallace — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:58:40 +0000

It’s interesting, but I can’t see how it’s any sort of solution.

It requires a source of concentrated CO2 which means that we have to burn fossil fuels to create feedstock. And then once we burn the fuel created that CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere.

All it does is temporarily delay increasing greenhouse gases.

Now if someone could make this work with atmospheric CO2 and let the ‘fuel’ seep far back underground….