Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From: Jed Rothwell
...
All the handwringing in the newspapers about the energy crisis is
misguided. The New York Times claim that "energy independence is an
unattainable goal" is ignorant nonsense. We could attain it in 20 years
using conventional technology. If we had started 20 years ago, we
would be
independent already. In fact we would be a paid-up member of OPEC, busy
exporting oil and possibly hydrogen to other countries.
Insane, indeed.
The problem with all these schemes is not technical or engineering. The
problem is that they would cost a terrific amount of money -- perhaps as
much as the war in Iraq. At the drop of a hat, the US will spend $270
billion on a war in Iraq, or $110 billion on the Star Wars
missile defense
system (I think that is the latest estimate), but we will not spend that
kind of money building solar towers, wind turbines, improved PV
technology
and so on.
Needless to say, one of the tremendous advantages cold fusion would have
over these conventional systems is that it would cost thousands of times
less to implement. It has many other advantages, described in my book.
When you talk about "solving" a technical problem you have to
remember that
some solutions are much better than others. Mainframe computers
went a long
way to solving many nagging data processing problems in the
1960s. If they
had not come along, the airline reservation system and the stock market
would have collapsed. But personal computers were a much better solution
and they allow us to do far more data processing than anyone
imagined in 1965.
- Jed
What remains mind boggling to me is the fact that even if none of these
exotic new forms of energy (CF, ZPE, etc...) ever get developed we STILL
could become energy independent in a short period of time, all based on
careful extrapolations of technology we are capable of building - all
applied to sources of energy we KNOW are available.
This continues to suggest to me that the main issue is not a technological
one.
It is a political problem.
Our nation needs another equivalent goal: "To land a man on the moon by the
end of the decade..."
Yes Steven, I agree this is what we need. However, how can this
approach be brought about? We need a government whose self-interest is
not to keep energy cost high and we need a population that will elect
people based on their interest in solving such problems rather than
stopping stem cell research and killing social security. I predict the
problem will be solved after gasoline reaches $5/gal and after Bush and
his philosophy have been completely discredited. At that time, people
will be so desperate that they will finally listen to reality. Until
then, nothing will improve because the special interests presently in
power are doing very nicely, thank you. However, they are not the kind
of interests that improve our lives. Just consider the situation, the
airline industry is going bankrupt, the auto industry is also going down
the drain, practically everything for sale is made in China, major
pension funds are being wiped out, social security and medicare are in
trouble, the national debt is out of control, and we are losing a war
that is killing our youth for no obvious benefit. In spite of all these
problems, the government is about to shut down, or at least be weakened,
because Bush and his gang want a couple of questionable judges. If
people don't care about these problems to do something, how would you
expect to gain support to solve the energy problem?
Regards,
Ed
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
