The problem with the strategy presented by Smith/Edison is that the big electric power utility companies have *already made the big investment in distribution*. Smith describes a new installation. The technology for the power management he describes is available today - you can go out and buy it for your house (not new). You can install solar, wind, etc and batteries and have a single power management station. What will be the result? You will draw less power from the electric utility. If you draw less power from the electric utility, you pay less toward maintenance of the big investment the power companies have already made (power companies profit >50% on each kWH they sell you). They will fight tooth and nail to prevent this income reduction to insure they get the return they promised their investors on the huge investment in big infrastructure. Face it, that's their job - to provide that return to the investors in utility bonds.
If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable energy and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller and cheaper. But this does not help the power companies that have already made the big investment in delivering lots of power to your home. This is why there is a war between the power companies and those promoting and using such distributed power systems. The war will last over 20 years and we are far from seeing the worst of it. Many big utility companies will go out of business before it is done. Some utility bonds will fail. On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Ken Deboer <[email protected]> wrote: > Vis a vis this excellent thread, I'd be interested in people's thoughts > about a new video by Robert Murray Smith on "The Internet of Energy". > This looks to me to be better than Tesla's technology, and in fact, a very > significant advance for, especially, widespread solar. > ken > > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As your analysis demonstrates, there's no warranty of any particular >> level of insight that attaches to comments in this and similar fora. You >> are free to leave when you like. >> >> Eric >> >> >> On May 5, 2016, at 13:19, Che <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet >> >>> >> >>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower >> >>> >> >> >> >> Indeed. If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will >> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may >> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it. >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> * Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus >> is essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence >> of some degree. >> >> * Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic >> social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact. >> >> * These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual, >> unfortunately) way. >> >> >> And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such >> a basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is almost >> invariably and essentially tossed aside -- in favor of the usual simplistic >> understanding of how non-technological social issues actually operate. >> (i.e. 'technology will save/doom us!!', yadda...) Technology, per se, *is >> essentially NEUTRAL*. >> >> >> >> >
