At 3:17 PM 4/16/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:27:09
>-0800:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>At 3:15 PM 4/14/5, Mike Carrell wrote:
>>>In the current discussion of a post-peak-oil world, the usual alternatives
>>>have been worked over thoroughly, and found unsatisfactory.
>>
>>Found unsatisfactory by whom? You must have been on another list. There
>>are plenty of promising renewable and conservation alternatives, enough to
>>dramaticaly reduce the cost of energy in the fairly near future, and to
>>eventually eliminate the use of carbon based fossil fuels.
>
>True, but these don't lead to access to the solar system, while
>evolution of energy dense solutions does.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
There is nothing in the proposed plan
<http://tinyurl.com/7eqju>
that discriminates against "dense" vs ordinary energy solutions. In fact,
funding for novel research is specifically encouraged. However, the key
criteria for the bulk of the the fund investment is the demonstrated
ability to show a return.
In the new energy realm we have seen one "promising" thing after another
fail to produce useful products, many turning out to be flim flam or
wishful thinking. There is STILL not one useful overunity product. We
can't really know if it will be one year before we see useful products or
if it will be 50 years before a significant portion of our energy needs
will be from "dense" sources, like even conventional hot fusion for
example. The Energy Legacy Plan takes this into account, and the funds are
allocated accordingly. Each year the best available options at the time
are funded. One way or another, an income producing steam is generated
along with the needed new sources of energy, and an exponential feedback is
created.
There is no sense at all in waiting for "pie in the sky" solutions when
viable solutions are at hand, and we need every solution that can be found.
We are long overdue for tapping the entrepreneurial might our societies
offer.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
