Jones Beene wrote: > > First off - how does anyone benefit, even an oil company (if they were > behind EarthTech's funding)? > > No oil company would ever benefit from maintaining the status quo in the > face of a real breakthrough advance, by even a tiny fraction of the net > effect of how they would massively benefit by capitalizing on the advance > itself.
That is incorrect for several reasons. First, oil company presidents, a U.S. Vice President and most recently the Japanese Min. of Science and Technology have told cold fusion researchers that they will not allow funding for cold fusion research because if it works it would "disrupt the energy economy." (Meaning it would oil company profits.) That is what they said, and I am sure they meant it. I personally have spoken to and gotten written messages from high level decision makers in corporations and governments who said this sort of thing. Second, read the history of technology and commerce and you will find countless examples of corporations, government departments, armies, navies and so on that fought tooth and nail to prevent technological progress. They sometimes succeeded for years, or decades. An example I often give is the New York dairy associations that successful fought to prevent the pasteurization of milk from 1870 to 1917, because it would add a few pennies per bottle of milk. During this time they sickened and killed hundreds of thousands of their best customers -- small children, including one of my great-grandmother's children. They were finally forced to pasteurize when WWI U.S. soldiers assembled on Long Island and were sickened by contaminated milk. U.S. automobiles fought successfully to prevent the use of seat belts and other safety measures from the 1920s until the mid-1960s. They fought energy efficiency and hybrid technology so well they have driven themselves into bankruptcy. In the early 1980s, minicomputer companies such as DEC and Data General fought a rear-guard battle to avoid using microcomputers and compatible PCs, rapidly putting themselves out of business. A few years later IBM nearly destroyed itself trying not to modernize, because it was run by people who did not themselves use PCs, and held them in content. A Wall Street Journal writer compared this to a music publisher run by tone-deaf people. I described reason #3 in my book. Oil companies have no experience or qualifications to develop cold fusion or the Mills effect. There is no chance they will play a role in this development. This would be like expecting the Pennsylvania Railroad to develop airplanes in 1903, or an airline system in the 1940s. There are other reasons, such as the fact that there will be little or no profit to developing cold fusion, as I described in the book. It will reduce per capita energy expenditures from ~$2,500 per person to a few dollars. There will be profits in selling peripherals and cold fusion powered machines, but not the energy itself. - Jed
