On 2012-07-29 22:51, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It will not be "the beginning of the end" in the cold fusion battle
until you start to see similar headlines about major scientists
endorsing cold fusion, especially scientists funded by people whose
interests will be hurt if cold fusion succeeds.
To be honest, I personally see more things in common between AGW (with
emphasis on the 'A') skepticism and LENR research than you're implying.
Both are not supported by the scientific consensus, for example.
[...]
Regarding global warming, I have no doubt it is real. To those who have
doubts, rational or not, here is what I say: Every step that is proposed
to deal with this problem is beneficial in its own right.
Yes, global warming per se is real, and I think few doubt that by now
(by the way, there are chances we might reach a record ice minimum this
year). However, whether that is natural or man-made, caused in part or
totally by human CO2 emissions or other factors instead, or its actual
magnitude, that's a different matter. Whether that is really a problem,
an even different one too.
Every step
would be progress in technology, and would ultimately lower the cost of
energy.
Unfortunately, I fail to see how every measure or technology proposed so
far is aimed to ultimately lower the cost of energy. Actually, (leaving
aside every political / governmental implication) I am getting the
opposite impression: everything seems directed toward decreasing global
emissions by making energy more scarce and expensive, or in other words
decreasing wealth in the western world, often with the undertones of
this being some sort of compensation for the environmental pollution
caused so far by the West and for the poor being poor in underdeveloped
countries.
So what difference does not make if global warming is not real,
or if it isn't caused by human activity? It is in our best interests to
act as if it is.
Are you suggesting that even if current theories about AGW were
completely wrong, we should adhere to them for greater good? I couldn't
disagree more with this.
By the way, leaving the scientific climate debate aside, statistically
speaking, even if we're currently warming, or even if global
temperatures will keep increasing for some more time, we're actually
overdue for a new ice age. I'm serious. This is the Vostok ice core
temperature record, popular in both sides of the climate change debate:
http://i.imgur.com/leXtv.png
The last few ice ages rather quickly followed short periods of warm
climate called interglacial periods. What exactly causes ice ages is
still pretty much unknown. Have a look at where we are currently.
I can't help but wonder what will happen when, after we will have done
everything possible no matter the cost to mitigate the possible
consequences or prepared for the hypothetical "runaway global warming
event" which never happened so far in the geological record, the next
inevitable ice age will occur. I think *that* will be a global disaster
and it's likely to happen at some point.
[...]
Let us be honest and admit frankly that if cold fusion succeeds, it will
lead to creative destruction on a far larger scale. It will destroy the
entire alternative energy sector -- solar and wind.
The renewable energy sector would be completely obliterated, and as I've
written several times in the past I expect that much resistance will
come from it if cold fusion will ever prove to be commercial viable.
Following that, it
will destroy the conventional energy sector: oil, coal and nuclear. This
will make trillions of dollars of infrastructure and investments
useless, practically overnight.
The oil industry will not perish as quickly as you think in my opinion.
Cheap, unlimited energy means that there will be an increasing demand
for oil-derived products where wealth, life quality will increase. This
can be expected to happen almost everywhere in the world (contrarily to
the current efforts aimed to "equalize" global wealth) once LENR goes
commercial. Over time this would counterbalance the losses in the fuel
sector. However this is assuming that plastic won't be replaced by
aluminum, the most abundant metal in the Earth crust which is sort of
expensive to work with due to the energy required to extract and process
it. Then only a fraction of the current market will remain, but still
oil companies won't likely disappear for a long time.
Nuclear fission energy is already doomed, both because it is getting
more and more expensive, mainly for safety reasons, and because of
strong social pressure.
Coal perhaps... might still end up being useful during the next ice age
to avoid CO2 depletion and decreasing albedo, who knows :)
Cheers,
S.A.
By the way Jed: your posts are very long and replies take much time to
write; please don't get offended if I cut more or less large portions of
them when I reply for the sake of discuss things quicker.
