# Is technology stagnating? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805 "2014-06-27T19:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/41 "2014-06-28T14:31:29Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 25 years ago, the internet was a place where my nerdy college roommate would spend literally hours to download one photograph of Elle MacPherson from some server in Sweden. ONE! > > Today, I can be sitting on a bus with my phone and download a movie. > > The Internet and SmartPhones have completely changed society, and we are watching the infancy of this technology. > > I’ll also second dracoi in his assessment. Information is massless and ephemeral, it’s relatively easy to improve your ability to move it around by orders of magnitude. Moving an easily damaged object like a human around the Earth, that’s not nearly as easy to improve. Plus, we can talk to and view almost any individual on the planet if we wish to at the click of a mouse. And do so at virtually no cost. Cost reduction and efficiencies are just as important as the original breakthrough in technology. I wonder if nano technology or 3D printing will be the next big technological breakthrough. Though with nano technology they have been predicting such advances for a decade or more(which in tech terms seems a lifetime). Your point about the human body is interesting. I read elsewhere that many of todays best military jets are handicapped not by technology but by the human body flying \*that \*technology. Humans can barely withstand the G forces and stresses involved. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/42 "2014-06-28T14:32:00Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > \If anyone figures out how to create flying machines that run on zero point energy that’d be cool. But who knows if that is possible. [Probably not.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy) > [@](#): > > Quantum mechanics, via Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, requires that the absolute position and velocity of any particle cannot both be simultaneously definable. From this it is an inevitable conclusion that even at a temperature of absolute zero, any substance must have a certain minimum energy. This energy is referred to as **zero-point energy.** The **vacuum energy** is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space — the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields and the Higgs field. > > There have been speculations that usable energy might be extracted using this energy as a source using something called the Casimir effect, but this is almost certainly pseudoscience, as it would require using an extremely large collector device similar in some ways to an electronic capacitor, but much larger and thinner, with a vacuum dielectric; there is no knowledge currently extant that can allow the creation of such a collector cell, and even if it was possible, the zero point energy in an area the size of the earth is so small as to be fairly useless. [1] > > According to Martin Gardner in his essay collection _Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?_, one of the chief researchers involved in ZPE study is Harold Puthoff, who was one of the most prominent of a crowd of Geller-gawkers in the 1970s height of the Human Potential Movement. Gardner noted that Puthoff’s work on ZPE lacked transparency and solid science, and in that regard was much like his Geller work. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/43 "2014-06-28T14:35:23Z")
[Here’s](http://www.dvice.com/2014-6-26/chip-paralyzed-mans-brain-lets-him-move-his-own-hand) something of a breakthrough. > [@](#): > > Four years ago, Ian Burkhart was paralyzed from the chest down during a trip to the beach, after he dived onto a sandbank by mistake. Last week, however, the 23-year-old was able to move the fingers in his hand for the first time — simply using the power of thought. The breakthrough was made possible by the insertion of a microchip in the part of the young man’s brain that controls the movement of his arms and hands during an operation in April. Although the power of thought has been used in the past to move artificial limbs, this is the first time that a quadriplegic has been able to move one of his own. > > The chip, just 0.15 of an inch wide and with 96 electrodes that can read thoughts, was inserted into a port into the American man’s skull, and connected to a computer via a normal computer lead. The electrodes deciphered the messages Burkhart was sending to his brain and the computer translated them into commands which were then sent, via a “sleeve” containing more electrodes around his forearm, which stimulated the muscles in his hand, making them obey the brain’s commands. It took Burkhart just one-tenth of a second from thinking about moving his arm to moving it. All he can do is wiggle his fingers a bit, but it has potential, and not just for quadriplegics. A strong neural-electronic interface is indispensable if we’re ever going to get anywhere near that [Singularity](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Singularity). ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/44 "2014-06-28T16:18:24Z")
Big revolutionary breakthrough more so than the steam engine or combustion engine is a new alternative fuel source a cheap and fuel efficient fuel source. With such new alternative fuel source a cheap and fuel efficient plane tickets can almost be given away for free and supersonic planes will be dirt cheap. Just think if a plane can burn grass , hay ,corn syrup ,corn ,leaves ,tree breaches or methane or other bio fuels.Next time you get in your car or truck and go to the gas pumps will be a dirt cheap and more fuel efficient. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/45 "2014-06-28T17:29:54Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Big revolutionary breakthrough more so than the steam engine or combustion engine is a new alternative fuel source a cheap and fuel efficient fuel source. You keep knocking on this point, but it doesn’t make sense. We can spend lots of money and time trying to find a **specific** revolutionary discovery and either get it in the first few years (the internet) or not have it after decades of effort (practical fusion power). This point has been repeatedly made in this thread. Revolutionary technologies come about frequently. But it’s not the case we can develop them simply by shooting for a specific target. Many of them came completely out of left field. If you want a **specific** innovation (flying cars or better fuels or whatever), you may well be disappointed. But if you want innovations **generally** , they happen all the time. Again, the pace of innovation has not slowed. But the pace of innovation in a particular sub-area may simply not be as fast as you want. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/46 "2014-06-28T20:02:53Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Big revolutionary breakthrough more so than the steam engine or combustion engine is a new alternative fuel source a cheap and fuel efficient fuel source. > > With such new alternative fuel source a cheap and fuel efficient plane tickets can almost be given away for free and supersonic planes will be dirt cheap. > > Just think if a plane can burn grass , hay ,corn syrup ,corn ,leaves ,tree breaches or methane or other bio fuels.Next time you get in your car or truck and go to the gas pumps will be a dirt cheap and more fuel efficient. Compared to when I started working 35 years ago the great revolutionary discovery is that you don’t often have to get on a plane at all. We can exchange information instantaneously and have people from all over the world look at the same screen. Six face to face meetings have been reduced to one or two. That’s a big savings in fuel costs. You might want to check what percentage of a ticket consists of fuel costs also. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/47 "2014-06-29T20:48:16Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > The government does not want to spend billions of dollars on a new Concorde 2 that is three or more times cheaper **because we don’t know how much cheaper it can get**. No matter how cheap it can get it will never be cheaper than the nothing it is costing right now. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/48 "2014-06-29T22:45:46Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > You haven’t driven an old car recently, have you? Old cars are shit. I have a couple that are 20-25 years old. Fifty years ago they were utter garbage. > [@sweat209](#): > > So why don’t they find other cheap more fuel efficient for supersonic commercial planes than it will be really fuel efficient and cheap. He hasn’t heard, felt, or cleaned up after a sonic boom, either. The Concorde was limited to flying supersonic when over the ocean, where there are few people with lawyers. Everywhere else it was a cramped, overpriced 727. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/49 "2014-06-30T13:03:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Compared to when I started working 35 years ago the great revolutionary discovery is that you don’t often have to get on a plane at all. We can exchange information instantaneously and have people from all over the world look at the same screen. Six face to face meetings have been reduced to one or two. That’s a big savings in fuel costs. > > You might want to check what percentage of a ticket consists of fuel costs also. I was going to come in here to say this. A businessman does not have any need to fly that quickly to London for a meeting anymore. Virtual meetingrooms have made that obsolete. And existing airplane speeds are just fine for just about anything a person needs to do at this time. If there is a change in social or business needs, such a a return to face-to-face meetings due to the growth of avatar-cloning security breaches or whatever, then we wil develop faster passenger planes to meet that need. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/50 "2014-06-30T13:22:59Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > The government does not want to spend billions of dollars on a new Concorde 2 that is three or more times cheaper **because we don’t know how much cheaper it can get**. I do know how much cheaper it can get. Answer: Never as cheap as a plane going half the speed of a Concorde. Never. Get the Concorde 2 to carry as many people as a current 747, with the same fuel useage as a 747, someone will use that technology to build a 747 Mk2 that carries twice as many people for half the fuel cost, and undercut your price by 70%. That’s not some failure of our inventors, it’s how air resistance, engine efficiency and material strength works. If you can get a Concorde to use less fuel, you can use the same tech on a 747. If you have materials that can make a 747 sized plane go Mach 2, you can use it to make a bigger plane that goes 500mph. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/51 "2014-06-30T17:37:41Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I do know how much cheaper it can get. Answer: Never as cheap as a plane going half the speed of a Concorde. Never. > > Get the Concorde 2 to carry as many people as a current 747, with the same fuel useage as a 747, someone will use that technology to build a 747 Mk2 that carries twice as many people for half the fuel cost, and undercut your price by 70%. > > That’s not some failure of our inventors, it’s how air resistance, engine efficiency and material strength works. If you can get a Concorde to use less fuel, you can use the same tech on a 747. If you have materials that can make a 747 sized plane go Mach 2, you can use it to make a bigger plane that goes 500mph. Than why are they researching so hard for alternative fuel source ? With run away costs at the gas pumps and airliners not doing well? It was dirt cheap at the gas pumps in the past and now people are doing away with SUV’s , big cars and big trucks.The airliners are hardly profiting now. Why the research for the holy grail for a cheaper and alternative fuel source? You seem to apply a law of chemistry opposed on a fuel source that airliners will never get cheaper. So why the research for holy grail for a cheaper and alternative fuel source? Why the talk of run away costs at the gas pumps and in the future only rich people can drive or go on a plane because of fuel shortage. Why would the law of chemistry not allow more molecules per volume being more densely packed being thus more fuel efficient than fossil fuels? If that the case why the research for holy grail for a cheaper and alternative fuel source? Nothing will be more fuel efficient than fossil fuels? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/52 "2014-06-30T19:03:50Z")
People are looking for less expensive fuel sources because the demand for petroleum is outstripping the supply. If you find a new fuel source that can meet that demand you make money; it’s a pretty simple proposition. Right now, a lot of that investment is going into getting known but expensive to extract petroleum out of the ground and to the pumps. Gas is still pretty dirt cheap - if you compare to inflation. Many airlines are losing money but it’s not mainly due to the cost of jet fuel. The problem is competition, margins, and other costs. You’re harping on efficiency - but that’s not really the problem. The reason petroleum is cheap is because you basically drill a hole in the ground and pump it out. There are lots of fuels that have a greater energy density than gasoline, the trick is producing it cheaper. Or getting more out of each gallon of fuel. That’s why hybrids are such a big win - you can increase your MPG dramatically even though you are using the exact same fuel source. To sum up (again, since you’ve done this in multiple threads) - you’re premise is false. The probably you are trying to solve is economic, not technological. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/53 "2014-06-30T19:07:39Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Than why are they researching so hard for alternative fuel source ? 1. Pollution 2. Limited availability Most of our alternate fuels aren’t superfuels. Rather, we’re looking for fuels that can replace a limited supply of an existing fuel. We won’t be using petroleum indefinitely. That has nothing to do with technology advancement. Even if our next fuel is not cheaper and not as energy dense as oil, we’ll still need to switch because sometime in the next century, we won’t be able to pull any more oil out of the ground, at least not economically. There’s also the question of how much carbon we really want to release so quickly. Look at coal. We hit peak production several decades ago. We’re still using it. It’s one of the cheapest, most energy dense methods of power production we have. We’re not moving away from it because newer technology is better. We’re moving away from it because we don’t want to deal with the byproducts of the production as much - even if that means having to pay more for cleaner plants or other power sources. We’ve determined the overall cost (including externalities) is not worth relying solely the low cost of the fuel itself. We’ve hit that point. I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make here. This doesn’t have much to do with the advancement of technology and rather more to do with limited supplies and concerns about our environment. ETA: As **Telemark** noted, it’s economic, not technological. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/54 "2014-06-30T19:33:18Z")
I thought the reason we use fossil fuels is it is the cheapest and most fuel efficient than any thing we know. The high demand and low supply is why we are trying to find other fuel that will replace it. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/55 "2014-06-30T21:37:19Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > I thought the reason we use fossil fuels is it is the cheapest and most fuel efficient than any thing we know. True. And it’s cheap because it comes out of the ground for free. Any fuel you invent that has high manufacturing costs isn’t going to be able to complete. > [@sweat209](#): > > The high demand and low supply is why we are trying to find other fuel that will replace it. But our supply isn’t low. We have a huge amount of fossil fuels, from tar sands to coal to stuff that needs fracking to acquire. The cost of acquiring it is higher than just sinking a hole in the ground, but modern techniques allow us to get it much cheaper than we used to get it. We still don’t have anything that really competes with traditional fossil fuels. Solar, wind, and nuclear can all be used with better battery technology to replace gasoline but it’s not yet cost effective. But it’s getting closer. Inventing some super duper energy dense manufactured fuel isn’t going to change that equation. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/56 "2014-07-01T00:17:11Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > True. And it’s cheap because it comes out of the ground for free. Any fuel you invent that has high manufacturing costs isn’t going to be able to complete. > > But our supply isn’t low. We have a huge amount of fossil fuels, from tar sands to coal to stuff that needs fracking to acquire. The cost of acquiring it is higher than just sinking a hole in the ground, but modern techniques allow us to get it much cheaper than we used to get it. We still don’t have anything that really competes with traditional fossil fuels. > > Solar, wind, and nuclear can all be used with better battery technology to replace gasoline but it’s not yet cost effective. But it’s getting closer. Inventing some super duper energy dense manufactured fuel isn’t going to change that equation. Okay so we know that fossil fuels is it is the cheapest and most fuel efficient of what we know today\*\* and that is why we do not use other fuels.\*\* But why are they researching so hard for alternative fuel source? > [@](#): > > But our supply isn’t low. We have a huge amount of fossil fuels, from tar sands to coal to stuff that needs fracking to acquire. Than why are gas prices so high? Now that people are doing away with SUV’s and big truck and other big cars?And other big RV’s of high costs ant the pumps? > [@](#): > > Any fuel you invent that has high manufacturing costs isn’t going to be able to complete. Biofuels like I said above do not really have any manufacturing costs.That is what I was getting at. > [@](#): > > People are looking for less expensive fuel sources because the demand for petroleum is outstripping the supply. > > But our supply isn’t low. From what I understand coal is not low or crude oil.But gas and the type of jet fuel are low. You not going to have cars ,trucks and planes burn those types of fossil fuels. The harder and really bad fossil fuels is what is they are finding lots of it now not the clean. **You just said some posts above that coal is very fuel effect and dirt cheap** but not practical for cars ,trucks and planes. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/57 "2014-07-01T00:27:28Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > But why are they researching so hard for alternative fuel source? You already got an explanation. There’s nothing wrong with the explanation. Two reasons: 1. We’ll run out someday 2. There are environmental concerns involved with the burning of fossil fuels. > [@sweat209](#): > > Than why are gas prices so high? Are they? Adjusted for inflation, we’re about on level with the historic highs. And that’s on the back of a recession, so the dollar isn’t worth particularly much right now. > [@sweat209](#): > > Now that people are doing away with SUV’s and big truck and other big cars? Are they? SUV sales are [doing just fine](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/21/suv-sales-continue-to-soar-despite-high-gas-prices). > [@sweat209](#): > > Biofuels like I said above do not really have any manufacturing costs.That is what I was getting at. Of course they do. You think a biofuel makes itself? At the very least, there’s a janitor cleaning up around the office, some engineers, and some other folks to pay. Where do you think the costs of conventional fuels comes from? The oil might come out of the ground, but we have to pay to extract, refine, and ship it around. Ditto biofuels. As has been repeated multiple times now, your assumptions are grossly in error (verifiably, in fact) and your conclusions are suspect. There’s certainly room for debate on how the world should be, but there’s no debate on how the world actually is. And in that world, gasoline is pretty cheap, and we’re not researching alternate fuels because of cost. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/58 "2014-07-01T00:29:04Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Biofuels like I said above do not really have any manufacturing costs.That is what I was getting at. Of course they do. If “manufacturing” covers the entire process of making something available to the end user, biofuels certainly have costs associated with their collection, refinement and delivery, just like conventional fuels. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/59 "2014-07-01T00:40:51Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > 1. Pollution > 2. Limited availability > > Most of our alternate fuels aren’t superfuels. Rather, we’re looking for fuels that can replace a limited supply of an existing fuel. We won’t be using petroleum indefinitely. That has nothing to do with technology advancement. > > Even if our next fuel is not cheaper and not as energy dense as oil, we’ll still need to switch because sometime in the next century, we won’t be able to pull any more oil out of the ground, at least not economically. There’s also the question of how much carbon we really want to release so quickly. > > Look at coal. We hit peak production several decades ago. We’re still using it. It’s one of the cheapest, most energy dense methods of power production we have. We’re not moving away from it because newer technology is better. We’re moving away from it because we don’t want to deal with the byproducts of the production as much - even if that means having to pay more for cleaner plants or other power sources. We’ve determined the overall cost (including externalities) is not worth relying solely the low cost of the fuel itself. We’ve hit that point. > > I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make here. This doesn’t have much to do with the advancement of technology and rather more to do with limited supplies and concerns about our environment. > > ETA: As **Telemark** noted, it’s economic, not technological. The confusing part is some people are saying we are running low on fossil fuels and other people saying there is lots of fossil fuels. > [@](#): > > Rather, we’re looking for fuels that can replace a limited supply of an existing fue Again there is conflicting information here that we are running low on fossil fuels. If we have enough fossil fuels to last 50 or 100 years than why are the costs at the gas pumps going up every year?Why are people getting small cars and big trucks,SUV,RV and other big cars people are doing away with. > [@](#): > > We’re not moving away from it because newer technology is better. We’re moving away from it because we don’t want to deal with the byproducts of the production as much - even You just said limited availability and pollution. > [@](#): > > I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make here. This doesn’t have much to do with the advancement of technology We have the technology for supersonic planes that can go very fast much faster than the Concorde but it is really costly.Going supersonic uses fuel like a drunken sailor. That why I was saying research for the holy grail for a cheaper and alternative fuel source. But seem people are apply a law of chemistry opposed on a fuels that it cannot be cheaper or more fuel efficient than fossil fuels. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805/60 "2014-07-01T02:47:32Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > That why I was saying research for the holy grail for a cheaper and alternative fuel source. And we’ve found it. Electrons and radio waves move at the speed of light. > [@](#): > > But seem people are apply a law of chemistry opposed on a fuels that it cannot be cheaper or more fuel efficient than fossil fuels. It’s hard to be cheaper than getting your raw materials, just a few simple processes away from the finished product, for free. And there are limits as to how much energy you can get out of any fuel with a non-nuclear process. We haven’t found them yet, but don’t think there aren’t entire industries trying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-technology-stagnating/691805.md?page=4)