Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
Grants can be dangerous, but only to those who abuse the system. For those who have written a grant proposal in the past they can say just how much work goes into proving the viablity and importance of your study. There is the difference. You are the one selling the importance of your work and findings and doing this work based on research ideas of your own or your research groups'. No one is approaching you and telling you that you need to produce data that supports this finding.
I'm the same way, but I guess I'm more of a visionary. I can see where a shift from dirty finite fuels to renewable energies will make the world a better (and safer) place. It also allows us to use our remaining pertoleum stores for the hundreds and thousands of other purposes founded in the past 100 years, and not just convert them to gasoline. There are so many things that we take for granted that come from petro-chemicals, and reserving our inventory of oil will sustain these products, and others developing, that much longer. The petro-chemical industry is not going to disappear like some of the fear mongers are suggesting, it is just going to be shifted and used in cleaner and more efficient ways.
|
First off I appreciate the civility in your argument, seriously.
The first thing I notice is that you are willing to separate grants into abuse and non abuse, but not those that getting funding from industry. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you>
Second ... Your not Hale Berry, don't call yourself a visionary, much better to take a compliment from others than flatter yourself. Seriously though, I don't think anyone is pro pollution, but the bottom line is the science of alternate fuels just isn't there yet. The Spark Spread on most alternates burn more fossils at the entry point than they save on exit. That has to change, and until it does no point in cutting off one's nose to spite their face.