businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for maximizing
profits of the established industries given the present market-driven (or
money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice for
humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing commercial
market force to drive the future of our economy, or should we doing things a
bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for discussions
at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt very strongly
that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we will be
encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if we choose
the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies (especially
energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.
Of course, it is hard for us to recognize which are the "better
technologies" for the future and which are not?! Well, if we really want to
follow the right logic and philosophy of allowing better technology to drive
for better future, it is not so hard for us to set up some systemic set of
requirement and criteria (at the least) to make sound assessment of all
potential technologies. This is why I am for "guided human creativities"
rather than for market-driven human creativities which are largely random
processes that you will never know what kind of uncertainties lay ahead of
human fate? Yes, the random creation of technologies such as the nuclear
fission or combustion heat engines might have brought new civilizations and
new economies, but it is also truly subject the fate of humanity to the
random consequences of any such random technology creations. In other words,
should Madam Curie understood the risk prospects of a human self-destruction
by nuclear wars in just several decades later after her lab experiment, I
bet she probably would second thought about her research direction in such a
deadly destructive force?! We were a lot closer in ruining the planet all
together back in 1962 than most of us would believe, weren't we? The modern
civilization only lasted a few hundred years since the industrial revolution
(a revolution created by random human creativity), and yet mankind have
gotten extremely close to the risk levels of self-destruction which could
have wiped out of our existence from this planet where our ancestors have
lived and evolved (relatively peacefully) for millions or hundreds of
thousands years!
In short, if we know of an energy technology (or R&D direction) which is
obviously clean and is harmless to our environment/ecosystem's natural
balances, harmless to fellow human beings and if we know it is sustainable
and inexhaustible and it can be made affordable to everyone on every corner
on earth (or in space) based on proven human ingenuity and based on existing
R&D track records, why not advocating and guiding our won human creativities
in that promising direction (or directions)?
Best of luck to us all,
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:pwerbos@nsf.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:49 PM
To: Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; Global Energy Network; 'Richard Godwin'; 'Paul J.
Werbos, Dr.'; BobKrone@aol.com; 'Global Energy Network'
Cc: edillin@lucasfilm.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net; missingpixels@gmail.com;
george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; lzielinski@comcast.net; sontermj@tpg.com.au;
sel@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov;
Aweisbrod@aol.com; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com; mindsmagic@nc.rr.com;
cacarberry@yahoo.com; info@hobbyspace.com; HowlBloom@aol.com;
jlowden@skysound.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; willjwatson@gmail.com;
lanny@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; dslavin@ilm.com;
jamieson@ilm.com; kcox12@houston.rr.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com;
chrism@ilm.com; lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com;
ellen@ellenmeijers.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com; nansens@centurytel.net;
amaraa@gmail.com; arcoscielos@yahoo.com; jeroen@ilm.com;
ericberm@bermweb.net; scurran@ilm.com; joshua@xprize.org;
hjarrett@futron.com; brianf@ilm.com; alx@ilm.com;
gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com;
bpittman@alliancespace.net; damian@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com;
mho@ilm.com; chrisbarnett@mac.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com;
mitc1615@bellsouth.net; bfrey@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com;
bmh@evolve.org; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; hyman@ilm.com;
info@ellenmeijers.com; jeffh@ilm.com; CRD9138@aol.com;
jthalterman@comcast.net; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; aec@ilm.com;
charleslurio@mac.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org; amtravis@ilm.com;
jediarizona@yahoo.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; anewall@comcast.net;
fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; moh@ilm.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net;
samurai@ilm.com; wmccoy@ilm.com; Jamesmsnead@aol.com; sanders@ilm.com;
dlivings@davidlivingston.com; phoebehelefante@gmail.com;
Manny@Lunarexplorer.com; Borntobewired311@aol.com; mattpb@ilm.com;
george@nss.org; johng@telascience.org; mikedludlam@hotmail.com;
tallguy@ilm.com; Wingod@assure.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; BobKrone@aol.com;
kimdamian@comcast.net; michael@clauss.com; rmains@mainsgate.com;
robin.snelson@gmail.com; joberg@houston.rr.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com;
smack@ilm.com; toddda2@todddaniele.com; ricktumlinson@gmail.com;
wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; cape@ilm.com
Subject: Re: [global-energy] hydrazine hydrate
At 12:07 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Sorry that before I posted my comment on Sunday I didn't get chance to read
>several of your previous email traffic on the entire hydrazine hydrate (HH)
>fuel discussions. I thought you were just talking about hydrazine and not
HH
>liquid fuels.... my apology.
Thanks much, Feng!
And I apologize that my words were not as clear as they should have been.
Bit by bit, topic by topic, it takes time to learn words that are
less likely to be confusing...
>However, I still believe that "lugging our transportation to the energy of
>the Sun" is the best bet for the long (or even short) term profitability of
>the automakers or for the US competitiveness and national security in the
>increasingly global economy. Yes, there may be a need of a transition
period
>to use GEM plug-ins liquid fuels before the EVs could come to dominate the
>commercial market.
If we do everything right... I am glad that I do not know exactly
what the optimal mix
will be that emerges, in the future, between liquid fuels and direct
electricity storage (and X...),
if the human economy keeps making progress. Knowing that would
be a distraction from the task before us, of trying to get cars out
there that give
consumers and energy producers a choice... so that the marketplace can
decide,
and also so that all producers can have maximum incentive to provide us
with more secure sources of fuel.
-----------------------
Long-term... it is also possible that HH might survive as a fuel for
aircraft and spacecraft (where
the weight of batteries would be a more serious problem) even if it
doesn't for cars and trucks.
Running airplanes without permission from OPEC is also an issue..
Best regards,
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment