*“I do not think the Pentagon and its many friends are going to stand by and do nothing while other countries develop military technology that can destroy our entire fleet of airplanes and ships in one afternoon at no risk to the enemy.”*
* * * * *You have neglected a potential very important roadblock to cold fusion development, the US military, air tight regulatory control, security classification, and the proprietary use of cold fusion technology by the military industrial complex.* * * *Nuclear fission and fusion have suffered from government management that prohibits private exploitation of these energy producing technologies because of second use fears. Even the sale of thorium is controlled because it is slightly radioactive.* * * On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wrote something that seems contradictory, but isn't. I said: > > * It is possible that vested interests may block the development of cold > fusion in the US for decades. > > * If this happens we will soon become a banana republic that imports all > important technology from other countries. > > If cold fusion is blocked, the way electric cars have been, that means we > will not be importing it from other countries. It will not be available > anywhere in the U.S. At least, not for several years, until the levees > crack, and we are inundated by cold fusion powered technology from other > countries. Yet even before this happens we will be forced to import "just > about everything" from other countries, because most goods and services will > be cheaper and better thanks to cold fusion. Even if you leave the energy > source in France or China, and import only the widget, the embodied energy > in the widget is still a major contributing factor to the cost. > > Cold fusion will have a large impact on all goods and services, not just > technology directly related to energy. Obviously it will improve things such > as automobiles and power generators and other primary sources of energy. But > it will also have an impact on gadgets which have no direct relation to > energy, such as spoons, food, movies, electronics, medicine and scientific > research. The importance of energy to scientific research was illustrated > yesterday on NHK. Many buildings and facilities at Tokyo National University > are closed, and many research projects on hold because of the daily power > failures and the need to conserve energy. There are signs on some of the > large computer networks (parallel processor computers?) saying "Do not turn > on this equipment" because they do not have enough electricity. > > Countries using cold fusion will be able to produce anything better and > cheaper than we do. Nowadays, people who make traditional goods such as > wooden furniture or clothing benefit from the use of electricity and > computers. Cheap electricity gives them a competitive advantage. Free > electricity will give them an even greater advantage. The cost of goods in > the U.S. will be higher than other countries if our factories are still > powered by coal, wind and uranium while they are powered by cold fusion. > Companies in China manufacturing furniture for the US market pay much less > for labor, and probably less for materials such as wood. The only thing > standing between them and total domination of our market is the cost of > transporting the goods to the US. With cold fusion, the cost of > transportation will be so close to zero it will be negligible. > > As I said, an automobile or generator can be thought of mainly as an energy > generating machine. If Ford, GM and GE are not allowed to develop cold > fusion automobiles they will soon be bankrupt and we will be importing > importing power generators, heaters, automobiles, tractors railroads and so > on -- all primary energy producers. A large fraction of all machines fall in > that category and many more soon will, as machines such as cell phones and > portable computers become self powered. > > It is hard to imagine a situation in which GE stands passively and allows > the Congress and big oil to put it out of business. I think it is more > likely GE will move its manufacturing and most of its business overseas > where cold fusion is allowed, to become mainly a European or Chinese > company. > > As I said before, I think the benefits of cold fusion will be so obvious to > so many people that political opposition from oil companies and others will > soon crumble. The American public howls when politicians propose increasing > the gasoline tax by five cents. It is hard for me to believe the public will > stand by passively while politicians allow large corporations to take $2,500 > out of every person's pocket indefinitely. That includes children, by the > way. For a family of four we are talking about a $10,000 tax every year for > life, levied by big oil & coal. I cannot imagine the public will stand for > it. But strange things do happen. We do sometimes allow powerful people a > great deal of leeway for no good reason. > > Also, whatever you think about the Pentagon you must admit those people are > pragmatic, and they have a realistic view of technology. There is a good > reason why nearly all cold fusion research in the US is being paid for by > DARPA. Yes, the DoE and the coal companies are powerful, but so is the > defense establishment and the corporations making weapons. As I pointed out > in my book, the day that cold fusion becomes practical every single weapon > system will be obsolete. Not a little obsolete -- as obsolete and useless as > wooden ships were after the advent of ironclad steamships such as the > Monitor and the Merrimack. > > People other than professional soldiers and historians do not realize the > impact of advanced technology on warfare. The Merrimack came within shouting > distance of the largest and most powerful ships in the U.S. Navy fleet and > blasted them to splinters without endangering the crew of the Merrimack. In > one day it sank or disabled three ships. If the Confederacy had possessed a > fleet of 20 seaworthy ironclads, and the Union none, the South would have > won the Civil War in six months. It would be like fighting the First World > War with WWII era artillery and aircraft. That would have been a 20-year > advantage which might as well be 100 years; i.e. weapons circa 2011. > > I do not think the Pentagon and its many friends are going to stand by and > do nothing while other countries develop military technology that can > destroy our entire fleet of airplanes and ships in one afternoon at no risk > to the enemy. Make no mistake: that is what cold fusion will do. It will do > that even though it is not likely to be used as a source of explosive power > in something like a nuclear weapon. In 1862, steam engines never killed > anyone intentionally, and they had no direct use as weapons, but it was the > steam engine that allowed the development of ironclad ships. Using cold > fusion to power prosaic components such as lights, motors or radios will > give weapons systems an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield. > > - Jed > >
