On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Robert Munn <cfmuns...@gmail.com> wrote:> > Of course, if such an alternative existed, this entire discussion would be > moot because energy companies all over the world would be vying to deploy it > and rake in the profits.
You keep saying shit like that like its self evident. But its not true. Its just not. History is littered with unproductive economies that continue on through force of habit and scale. You don't seem to understand the role of disruption in economics at all. Just because something is a better idea does not mean it will win in the short term or even the long term. Oil and coal succeed, in large part, because they have momentum on their side. They have distribution, they have subsidies, they have entire industries geared around the way that they work. Pick alternative X and X may be potentially much more profitable, but there is not sufficient incentive to do the infrastructure and industry changes necessary to realize those profits. Inertia plays a huge role in economics and you don't see to understand or acknowledge that at all. One of the biggest pushes for "alternative" energy on the right is hydrogen. Why? Hydrogen isn't very economical to produce and it is hazardous to store. But what it does have going for it is that it behaves much like traditional energy, like oil and natural gas. It needs large energy input to produce, so lends itself well to centralized production. And once produced, it can be condensed and distributed in a pipeline system that matches up well with oil and natural gas. It isn't nearly as economically productive for the country as a whole when compared to solar and wind, but it matches up well with the infrastructure, economics and mindset of the traditional power brokers. Contrast that with solar and wind, which are largely decentralized and don't follow the same distribution model as oil and gas. Its really not rocket science. Just because a product like solar power can be very advantageous for the general public does not mean that it will work best for Exxon. And Exxon is not in the business of doing the best thing for the general public, they are in the business of doing the best thing for Exxon. So it doesn't matter if solar may be more economical, if it doesn't match up well with the 10-billion a quarter companies, its going to have a tough slog for adoption. That's just life. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283295 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
