I wrote:
The $1 trillion I am discussing here would only be used for the startup costs, not for ongoing costs such as fuel and maintenance. . . .
Cold fusion is far better than any of these alternatives because instead of costing $1 trillion for the transition, it would cost only a few hundred billion.
To clarify, energy now costs each American $2,499 per year. After we spend $1 trillion to transition to alternative energy, it will probably still cost $2,499 per year. (See my book, chapter 2.) Even though wind power consumes no fuel, it still costs a lot for other reasons, mainly distribution and maintenance. With cold fusion, after we spend $200 billion for the transition, fuel costs drop to $1 per person; distribution no longer exists; and maintenance costs are much lower because the equipment is designed to be cheap and long-lasting, rather than fuel efficient.
We should transition to alternative energy sources because this will prevent global warming and destroy al Qaeda and radical Islam, by eliminating their funding. But unfortunately, alternative energy will not save us any money, it will not make much difference to our lifestyle, and it will not help the 2 billion people who live in dire poverty at the edge of starvation without clean water. Cold fusion, on the other hand, will ultimately save us $5,000 or more per year (counting both fuel costs and cheaper equipment); it will revolutionize all technology; and if it is wisely used along with other technology it will eliminate dire poverty everywhere in the world.
Some experts believe that in the long-term alternative energy sources such as wind power will be cheaper than today's fossil fuel. Perhaps this is true, but the difference will not be dramatic. As I said before, the only alternative source that would be dramatically cheaper would be space-based solar, or possibly hot fusion.
- Jed
